The UK: Labour, “Conservatives” and the Israel-Hamas Conflict

In the last few days several Labour ministers have harangued the BBC over its decision not to run an aid appeal for Gaza. But BBC director general Mark Thompson insists that airing the appeal might compromise the corporation’s impartiality.(1) Secretary for International development Douglas Alexander has written to Thompson, asking him to reconsider his position. Typifying the Leftist-mindset that sees the work of “Zionists” everywhere, Ben Bradshaw has said that “[…] the BBC has to stand up to the Israeli authorities occasionally.” And Martin Linton, chair of Labour Friends of Palestine and the Middle East, has issued a statement attacking the broadcasting corporation’s decision.
 
You may not have heard of Labour Friends of Palestine and the Middle East, which was formed only recently,(2) and with the exception of the Guardian – which ran a brief story questioning the reason why Cherie Blair would not attend the launch – its establishment appears to have gone uncommented upon in the mainstream press.
 
However, just over a week ago, on January 12, an early day motion in parliament welcomed “[…] the launch of Labour Friends of Palestine and the Middle East to provide a voice for Labour Party members and supporters who want to see a viable and independent state of Palestine alongside Israel […]” The motion goes on to say, however, that although “[…] the organisation opposes the use of violence, whether by Israel or Palestinians, [… it] regards the excessive military force used by Israel in Gaza as grossly disproportionate and counterproductive; [and] notes with concern that moderate Palestinian public opinion is being critically undermined […]”
 
The launch party for this organization was held the next day, on January 13, and hosted by Linton. A few days earlier on Saturday January 10, he had addressed the pro-Palestine demonstration in London. Other speakers included – farcically – Annie Lennox and Bianca Jagger, as well as far-Left MP George Galloway, and Palestinian-born academic Azzam Tamimi, the last of which, according to the Daily Mail, has “[…] boasted he would carry out a suicide bombing in Israel.” At the protest Tamimi’s speech was predictably inflammatory:
Allah Akbar. Allah Akbar. Allah Akbar.
 
Today we are all Hamas. Today we are all Hamas. Today we are all Hamas.
 
[...] Hamas has acquired in addition to democratic legitimacy – not that I believe in democracy anymore [audience cheers] – it has acquired resistance legitimacy.  Today Hamas -- and I tell you as a Palestinian – today Hamas is our leader to liberation.  

Of course, Hamas does not really believe in democracy either. The organization never expected to win the Palestinian elections in 2006, and did so only because of a massive protest vote against Fatah – which shocked and disturbed a good many of those that had voted. Not surprisingly. Hamas’ raison d’etre is to advance Islam, not “free Palestine,” as naïve Leftists believe. In the last few days a Palestinian Authority official in Ramallah has even said that leaving Hamas in power was a “mistake” that is “bad for all,” and that “There's no room for these Hamas thugs in the West Bank. We won't allow Hamas to turn the West Bank into another Islamic republic.”
 
For the people of that area of Palestine, however, a Hamas government has meant a return to sharia law, with the harshest and cruelest of punishments meted out for the smallest “crime.” (A video of Hamas breaking up a wedding party with gunfire, smashing chairs and tables, and beating people with clubs – all because the party was committing the crime of ‘singing’ – can be seen here.) And It should be pointed out that Hamas stores its weaponry in civilian areas – even under schools and mosques – thus ensuring a very high level of casualties in any armed conflict. As such it is in violation of the Geneva Conventions (article 51.7).
 
A mix of Islamism and proto-Nazi conspiracy theory, Hamas’ charter declares that the organization’s “struggle [is] against the Jews,” not just Israeli Jews or Israel. And the Hamas charter also states that, “Israel will exist […] until Islam will obliterate it.” Tamimi is apparently aware of this. Near the end of his speech, he stated:
[...] Israel has dug its grave. Zionism has dug its grave. You count – count the years. That embassy there [points to the Israeli embassy], when there will be a Palestinian embassy. The Zionist flag will come down, and the flag of Palestine will go up.

So, no two state solution then?
 
I have no idea whether Linton agrees with Tamimi’s words or not, but, as far as I am aware, he has not publicly distanced himself from them. Having seen Ken Livingstone endorse terrorism-advocate Yusuf al-Qaradawi, as well as a parade of extremists pass through various government offices, we might rightly be suspicious of the apparently close proximity of he and Tamimi. But then Linton is part of a growing phenomenon that has now reached well into what is generally called – but what so often does not appear to be – the political “center.”
 
Although it has gone uncommented upon in the mainstream press, the Conservative [Party] Muslim Forum (CFM) has issued an official statement on the Gaza conflict. Though supposedly part of an opposition, “conservative” party, its position seems identical to the position of various Leftist organizations – and perhaps especially those on the far-Left.
 
The CFM states that, “The Israeli nation should realise that their unacceptable actions are inflicting utter misery and devastation similar to what Jews have themselves suffered in the past.” The CFM has every right to highlight Palestinian civilian casualties, of course, but this phrase seems designed to make the reader think of the Holocaust and the Nazis – and, as such, to compare the Israelis to the Nazis.
 
Even if one believes that this is merely a poor choice of words, such words must nevertheless carry great symbolic value at this time when radical Islam is on the rise in Britain, and when anti-Semitic incidents are rising correspondingly. Only in the last few weeks, in the streets of London and other European cities, have we seen Muslim (and, to a lesser extent, Leftist) youths making Nazi-salutes at Jews or at the Israeli embassy, waving Israeli flags with swastika graffiti on them, holding placards with the swastika and Star of David, etc.
 
The Jerusalem Post cites a report by the Global Forum Against Anti-Semitism which found that an “unprecedented” number of attacks has taken place around the world in the last few weeks. Alarmingly, according to the Jerusalem Post, “The bulk of the anti-Semitic incidents took place in Western Europe and were led by local Muslim officials, including 100 in France and Britain each […]” The paper also cites “[…] ‘conspicuous’ comparisons being made between Israel's actions against Hamas in Gaza and those of Nazi Germany during the Holocaust,” as an apparent factor. And Yad Vashem chairman Avner Shalev is quoted as saying, “[…] as interest in the Holocaust continues to grow around the world, we are also witnessing a rise in the provocative and cynical use of the Holocaust in attacking Israel and Jews.”
 
Though not responsible for this violence and aggression, the CFM nevertheless has a responsibility to condemn it, or to ensure that the language of its statements cannot be perceived as tacitly endorsing it, or as being inline with the extremist propaganda highlighted in the Jerusalem Post and elsewhere. However, the CFM goes on to say in its statement that, “[…] it is deeply concerned that Israel’s action is already damaging community relations in the UK and may provoke people to take extreme actions whose repercussions can last for years. The British Government and all political parties need to recognise that Israel’s onslaught risks poisoning community relations not only in the Middle East but also here.”
 
The inference would appear to be that unless the British government changes its position toward Israel, terrorist actions, etc., will occur in Britain. We’ve heard this before from some other types of Muslim organization, haven’t we? If the CFM believes that Muslims, Hamas sympathizers, etc., might “take extreme actions whose repercussions can last for years,” then it is obliged to strongly warn them against taking such actions. And it must condemn the rise of radical Islam and the violent anti-Semitism of pro-Hamas supporters in Britain in recent weeks. If it will not, then the Conservative Party must explain to the voters why such an organization exists at all.

 

----
 
(1) The impartiality of the BBC has of course been in question for some time. The organization appears to have transformed from one with journalistic integrity, concerned with fact, to one that sees its mission as promoting multiculturalism and Leftist politics. A series of Q & As about Gaza, that I saw on the BBC website a couple of weeks ago clearly demonstrates this. The final question, “How might this end?” was answered “If there is no agreement, Israel will try to impose its conditions by force. Hamas will contest it.” Contest it how, exactly? The BBC has since removed this, but the entire Q & As were previously copied and pasted here.

 
(2) An organization known simply as the “Labour Friends of Palestine” appears to have been in existence earlier on. There is a mention of a society by this name in the Muslim News from 2001, though it is possible that this was confused with the Labourite Trade Union Friends of Palestine. According to Labourhome.org Labour Friends of Palestine held its first event – ‘Forgotten People of Gaza’ – in September 2008, and was due, then, to hold its official launch in November. Martin Linten is recorded in the Hansard (December 18, 2008) as stating that he was then “in the process of helping to launch a new organisation next month called Labour Friends of Palestine, the main campaign of which will be to call for a halt to the expansion of settlements.” The Labour Friends of Palestine and the Middle East also wrote a letter to David Miliband in the first week of January 2009.



New Collective Noun for Selected Clown(s)

@ Capo'
 
How about  'A Speculation of Kapperts'?
 

speculation (2)

@ kappert
 
I guess even you couldn't argue that the Japanese did NOT surrender after Hiroshima, but why don't you address Capo's point as to WHY they surrendered?
 
Silly Arse!
 
http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/books/lordcharlesdavidsillitoe460.jpg
 
 

speculation

So the Japanese surrendered after Hiroshima, thanks for the news. The second paragraph is surely correct, the third pure speculation.
Spaceship: 20090421N4028W109332300

When does the Spaceship come back to pick you up?

@Kappert

"Hiroshima....A question no one can reply?"

Nobody in your universe can reply. But the records of the Japanese War Council are quite clear it was only after the devastation of Hiroshima, (the Russian entrance into the War in the Far East,) and Nagasaki that the Japanese were ready to surrender.

Furthermore, the Japanese would have suffered horrific losses as would have the invading Allies if the conventional bombing and planned invasion would have taken place.

The Japanese military would not have surrended unconditionally if some seagulls, coconuts, and a few poor native peoples got blown to smitherings. Though maybe if you were around at the time you could have gotten the seagulls and cocoNUTS to volunteer to take the hit for world peace?

IDF #13

On Hiroshima: In the summer of 1945, Japan was not able to produce the A-Bomb. If the bomb would be dropped on, let's say on the Izu Islands with few population at a 300km distance of Tokyo, wouldn't the Japanese military regime engage to terms of ceasefire (surrender)? A question which nobody can reply.
Ehud Barak knows that Israel did not comply to the agreement to open Gaza's frontiers and expected a Hamas action when he ordered US weapons to plan the Xmas attack.
The dilemma of marcfrans is that he does identify 'democracy' with Western culture. By his definition non-Western social systems are not democratic. Though he knows that Western democracies (Germany, Italy, Portugal, Finland) were able to elect dictators, which should remind him that Western culture can easily produce barbarian regimes.
Casual: If he implies that deliberate action to kill civilians, as in Hiroshima or Warsaw, or Gaza, is justified to end a war-situation, he should think about what he is saying, that is, his moral conscience.

IDF # 12

1) There was nothing "casual" about the megadeaths at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  On the contrary, they were a direct result of a deliberate action that ended world war 2 in the Pacific.  In so doing they forestalled many more 'megadeaths' that would have been sure to follow if the war had not ended.  The war itself was of course a result of Japan's aggressive 'expansion' into Korea, China and beyond...and of 'Pearl Harbor'.  It is only the Kappertian mind that likes to blind itself to such realities, and that is incapable of understanding that people who are fighting against totalitarian monsters do not have the 'luxury' of putting their head in the sand like the likes of spoiled and 'protected' Kappertian 'armchair' fools.  

2) Ehud Barak had no real choice but to bomb Gaza, if he wanted the attacks originating from Gaza to stop.  The proof lies in the fact that Kappert has not produced any alternative option, given that his Plan B remains unspoken (and for understandable reasons, for it would expose his hypocrisy).

3) On the contrary, all "casualties" are worthy of "spending a moral thought on".   However, in order to be able to make sensible judgements about moral dilemmas, one must have a brain and a developed moral conscience.  Kappert clearly lacks both, when he refuses to make the logical connections and reflexively blames the 'democratic' side in any conflict with nonwestern totalitarians.  (Oddly enough, he does not suffer from such blindness when it comes to western totalitarians, like Hitler for example).  That is the perverse selfhatred of stupid Western naive-leftism on full display.  

IDF #11

Dear Capodistrias, you are showing evidence of illusion. How could TS possibly analyse anybody's mind??? He is an opinion writer, nothing more. And he does not have the telepathic psychological empirical convictions marcfrans has, so it would result in a poor footnote. But it makes me think about the proliferation of wise words in Davos - try to metaphor the minds of the 'experts' who once proclaimed the victory of free market and now like to nationalise the bloodsuckers.

IDF X

@atlanticist

I 'think' that Takuan Seiyo will need to devote a whole footnote to the Kappertian Mind on how it deviates from his Pod metaphor. Link below wood be a good place start.
http://www.badmovies.org/movies/plannine/

@atlanticist

First, you are an absolute ignorant relatively to taoism, second you know even less about UN resolutions, third you are so smallheaded that 'education' means for you to google for some funny pictures, and fourth you are so frustrated that you engage in the sistematic simplicity of military conduct. And, at last, you have troubles with your emotions and you 'think' you are rational.

IDF #9

So the casual megadeath of Hiroshima, Nagasaki or 911 does not enter in marcfrans' 'value connotation'. Equally didn't the KZ facilities for a man named Eichmann. And Ehud Barak doesn't hesitate to bomb 1,5 million people in the Gaza ghetto, consequently defended vehemently by Peres in Davos (the economic sanatorium). Marcfrans' warfare produces only casualties, not worth of spending a moral thought on.

IDF Nein (und abermals nein!)

@ marcfrans
Kappert's plan A is the taoist twaddle he's been peddling on this forum since day one. It's twaddle because the real world doesn't operate that way and kappert admits as much when he writes, "There are resolutions against Palestinian terrorism, there are resolutions against Israeli occupation...As Israelis (and Palestinians) ignore the UN, it's not worth to discuss". see: node/3761

I believe Kappert does have a secret plan B which would be the 'peaceful' eradication of the state of Israel, but because he knows this can't be done peacefully, he finds himself in a very embarrassing place.
 
Silly Arse!. 
 
 

IDF # 8

1) The word "casualty" is very easy to define.  All it requires is to make observations or to use one's eyes.  It has no value connotation. 

By contrast, the word "victim" is a very different matter.  It involves moral judgements about 'guilt' on the part of ALL involved (both combatants on all sides and 'casualties' alike). It also involves judgements (preferably rational ones) about the 'causality' of events, both in an immediate sense and in a more distant sense (Yes, the election results of '2006' matter in terms of assigning blame!).

2) It is remarkable that German educational personel in 2009 is capable of holding Hitler or nazis responsible for all the German "victims" over half a century ago, but is incapable of holding Hamas (and similar nutcases, with a very SIMILAR ideology as the nazis) responsible for 'Palestinian' "victims" today.  Somehow the different sides got mixed up in the two comparisons.  Hitler was a 'bad' guy against the European democracies, but Hamas is not bad against the Israeli democracy?       

So much for the (in)ability of Herr K in making sensible moral judgements. 

IDF #7

I do not use the word 'casualties' (try to define that!), I use the word 'victim'. Indeed Hitler and Stalin are in the frontline to produce victims.

IDF # 6

@Atlanticist

- The mind boggles.  What does "INumerous" mean? Could it be the opposite of "numerous"?  In that case it would mean 'few'.

- Kappertian historical revisionism is mindboggling, indeed.  The 'justness' of a cause is judged by the number of "victims" suffered by one's side?  By that logic, Hitler's nazi Germany (and Stalin's Russia too!)  must have been on the 'right' side of history, because they suffered the most 'casualties'.  Note, Atlanticist, the subtle distinction between casualties and victims, because Kappert surely won't.  

- One can safely assume that there are "nutcases" to be found everywhere, but their proportions differ considerably, as one can see by making empirical obervations of actual 'conditions' around the world.

IDF #5

'Hot air'. Identifying fanatical nutcases may report to inumerous examples in history. Normally, they are evaluated by the number of their victims. Israel seems to escape from this empirical pattern. As if there were no 'nutcases' in the 'unilateral country'.

IDF # 4

@ Atlanticist

I don't understand what you mean by K's nonexistant "plan B". Does this mean that he has a plan A?  If so, what is it?

I also think that we can safely discount the validity or relevance of his latest probability estimate of death from car accidents in Tel Aviv.  Until he is himself prepared to join the IDF to go into Gaza and other places to root out Iranian-trained islamic fanatical nutcases, his opinions on such matters are as valuable as 'hot air'.

One would expect that people who are in the grip of murderous ideologies and who 'follow' (even 'elect') a terror organisation, would suffer "greater casualties" than people who produce more sensible and civilised governments.  After all, the Germans of my parents' generation paid a terrible price (in terms of casualties)  for precisely doing the same thing, i.e. 'following' a murderous ideology.  However, do not expect Herr K to be able to make proper comparisons across history. He is parroting a new ruling cultural orthodoxy, which will be swept away by future new/old totalitarian ideologies.  
 

IDF #3

“The IDF has to actually fight a real enemy. Its soldiers have to risk their lives on a regular basis.“ Sounds scary, yet, the probability to die in a car accident in Tel Aviv-Jaffa is far greater than to get hit by a Hamas shell. Israeli Casualties in Battle: 22.406 since 1947 (10 in Operation Cast Lead 2009) (Jerusalem Post). The figures on the Palestinian side are well different, as you know.

IDF # 2

@ pvdh

"Impartiality" is not the greatest good.  In fact it can be a terrible moral wrong.  And impartiality cannot possibly mean that one should not make any mental judgements or ignore common sense. 

The article did not claim to be "impartial".  But it does illustrate that the European media is partial.  Proper media should make a distinction between opinion-presentation and news-reporting.  Obviously the former is always partial, but the latter should in principle seek to remain objective and honest.  In the current media environment it is not.

It is ludicrous to expect impartiality from the IDF. The IDF is not some distant bystander like 'solongeneraals' in Brussels.  The IDF has to actually fight a real enemy.  Its soldiers have to risk their lives on a regular basis.   You cannot fight wars with an army that is 'impartial' towards its enemies.  The BBC, however, has the luxury of NOT having to fight Israel's wars.  From the BBC reasonable people might expect some more 'objective reporting', but they are not getting it. .
 
 

IDF

I agree that the European press is not impartial. but the same can be said about this article
Today in Haaretz we could find the following about the advise of the official IDF rabbinate to the soldiers, before they entered Gaza
,"[There is] a biblical ban on surrendering a single millimeter of it [the Land of Israel to gentiles, though all sorts of impure distortions and foolishness of autonomy, enclaves and other national weaknesses. We will not abandon it to the hands of another nation, not a finger, not a nail of it. This is an excerpt from a publication entitled Daily Torah studies for the soldier and the commander in Operation Cast Lead," issued by the IDF rabbinate. The text is from Books of Rabbi Shlomo Aviner, who heads the Ateret Cohanim yeshiva in the Muslim quarter of Jerusalem

The IDF rabbinate, also quoting Rabbi Aviner, describes the appropriate code of conduct in the field: "When you show mercy to a cruel enemy, you are being cruel to pure and honest soldiers. This is terribly immoral. These are not games at the amusement park where sportsmanship teaches one to make concessions.

This view is also echoed in publications signed by Rabbis Chen Halamish and Yuval Freund on Jewish consciousness. Freund argues that "our enemies took advantage of the broad and merciful Israeli heart" and warns that "we will show no mercy on the cruel.

In addition to the official publications, extreme right-wing groups managed to bring pamphlets with racist messages into IDF bases. One such flyer is attributed to "the pupils of Rabbi Yitzhak Ginsburg" - the former rabbi at Joseph's Tomb and author of the article "Baruch the Man," which praises Baruch Goldstein, who massacred unarmed Palestinians in Hebron. It calls on "soldiers of Israel to spare your lives and the lives of your friends and not to show concern for a population that surrounds us and harms us. We call on you ... to function according to the law 'kill the one who comes to kill you.' As for the population, it is not innocent ... We call on you to ignore any strange doctrines and orders that confuse the logical way of fighting the enemy

I must say I see more resemblances with Jihad pamphlets then with Christian doctrine.

fighting goes on (2)

While you may not have a plan B, clearly, both Hamas and the Israelis DO.

fighting goes on

"Israeli jets have carried out fresh raids on tunnels under the Gaza-Egypt border, reportedly sending hundreds of people fleeing their homes in panic." (al-jazeera)
What about 'ceasefire'?