As a small addendum to the previous post, I've just noticed somebody on Twitter pointing out that Stephen Daisley used to write for the Times of Israel, where his mini-biography describes him as writing "from a centre-right perspective". It also reveals that he has (or had) a blog called The Eclectic Partisan. Having looked it up, what I found most immediately fascinating is the contents of his link list -
CiF Watch (a website devoted to finding anti-Semitism in The Guardian regardless of whether it is there or not)
Commentary Magazine (self-described as the "flagship of neoconservatism")
David Frum (speechwriter for George W Bush)
Harry's Place (blog that mostly bashes the Left)
Janet Daley (yup, you know who Janet Daley is)
Jerusalem Post
Jewish Chronicle
John Rentoul (arch-Blairite who had no hesitation in saying he preferred Cameron as PM to Miliband)
Julie's Think Tank (now a protected blog, but from what I gather appeared to follow a neocon line)
Martin Bright (formerly of the "Tony Blair Faith Foundation")
Melanie Phillips (yup, you really, really know who Melanie Phillips is)
National Review's The Corner
The New Criterion
Nick Cohen (the neocons' favourite ex-leftie)
Rob Marchant (member of the Blairite Progress group)
Now, admittedly, you can't necessarily judge a man by his link list - I have one or two blogs on my own list that I often profoundly disagree with. But it has to be said there is a fairly consistent ideological theme running through Daisley's list like a stick of Blackpool rock.
There's nothing wrong with being a "centre-right" admirer of neocons if that's what floats your boat. But I really, really struggle to reconcile this more authentic version of Daisley with the image he's tried to project of himself in his STV articles, which is presumably self-consciously tailored for a Scottish audience. His fervour for Tony Blair and Liz Kendall suddenly makes a lot of sense, but not necessarily in the context of his supposed "inchoate" attachment to Labour as a "transformative left-of-centre political force". Anyone voting in the Labour leadership election might want to be a tad suspicious about the motivations for his relentless assault on the radical left - is he really, as he presents himself, a man rooted in Labour values who is simply trying to help rescue the party from itself? Probably not.
Incidentally, you might be interested to know that Daisley said on his blog a couple of years ago that Israel "liberated" Jerusalem in 1967 (ie. by conquering the Arab-dominated East Jerusalem). By any standards, that is a grotesque and - to use one of his own favourite words - unhinged interpretation. There comes a point where you just have to conclude that a man has utterly lost all sense of perspective on his favourite subject, and that he has forfeited any right to be taken seriously when he writes about it, regardless of the quality of his prose.
Showing posts with label Israel. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Israel. Show all posts
Tuesday, August 25, 2015
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
Israel, and circular logic
I just spotted this comment from a user on the Sky website -
"Surely the world can only recognise a sovereign Palestinian state when they and the rest of the Arab world recognise Israel."
Leaving aside the minor quibble that the Palestinian president and much of the rest of the Arab world do indeed recognise Israel, I'm guessing the vast majority of American politicians would regard that statement as plain common sense. But what if it were to be reversed, and precisely the same standards applied to Israel and the US that are applied to the Palestinians and the Arabs...
"Surely the world can only recognise Israel's right to exist when they and their American allies recognise Palestinian statehood."
Now that would be considered utterly outrageous. But what exactly is the difference? Unless of course Palestinians are considered to be of intrinsically less worth than Israelis.
On a vaguely similar theme, I also spotted this at AmericaBlog -
"Bachmann and her ilk are pretty disgusting people. But her latest argument is truly revolting. Bachmann thinks that Obama did too little to save the dictatorship of Mubarak. According to the National Review:
In a speech to about 400 Republicans gathered for the state party’s fall convention here, the three-term Minnesota congresswoman blamed President Obama for “the hostilities of the Arab spring” and expressed regret that “we saw (Egyptian) President (Hosni) Mubarak fall while President Obama sat on his hands.”
Just what is so special about Israel that the populations of Egypt, Tunisia and Libya, a total of over 100 million people should have to live under brutal dictatorships just in case democracy might be a threat? Margaret Thatcher believed the opposite, pointing out to Gorbachev that two democracies had never gone to war against each other."
What's so special about Israel? Well, one thing that always used to be cited (I remember Melanie Phillips fuming when the Question Time audience spontaneously laughed after she brought the subject up) is the very fact that it was "the only democracy in the Middle East". But that claim became somewhat more problematical when you remembered that Israel and its allies have for decades been moving heaven and earth to keep the situation that way, against the wishes of the people in neighbouring countries.
UPDATE : And another pearl of wisdom from a Yahoo user -
"Can you imagine the Palestinians running the country on their own? No!"
Dear heavens, the Palestinians sound almost as useless as the Scots.
"Surely the world can only recognise a sovereign Palestinian state when they and the rest of the Arab world recognise Israel."
Leaving aside the minor quibble that the Palestinian president and much of the rest of the Arab world do indeed recognise Israel, I'm guessing the vast majority of American politicians would regard that statement as plain common sense. But what if it were to be reversed, and precisely the same standards applied to Israel and the US that are applied to the Palestinians and the Arabs...
"Surely the world can only recognise Israel's right to exist when they and their American allies recognise Palestinian statehood."
Now that would be considered utterly outrageous. But what exactly is the difference? Unless of course Palestinians are considered to be of intrinsically less worth than Israelis.
On a vaguely similar theme, I also spotted this at AmericaBlog -
"Bachmann and her ilk are pretty disgusting people. But her latest argument is truly revolting. Bachmann thinks that Obama did too little to save the dictatorship of Mubarak. According to the National Review:
In a speech to about 400 Republicans gathered for the state party’s fall convention here, the three-term Minnesota congresswoman blamed President Obama for “the hostilities of the Arab spring” and expressed regret that “we saw (Egyptian) President (Hosni) Mubarak fall while President Obama sat on his hands.”
Just what is so special about Israel that the populations of Egypt, Tunisia and Libya, a total of over 100 million people should have to live under brutal dictatorships just in case democracy might be a threat? Margaret Thatcher believed the opposite, pointing out to Gorbachev that two democracies had never gone to war against each other."
What's so special about Israel? Well, one thing that always used to be cited (I remember Melanie Phillips fuming when the Question Time audience spontaneously laughed after she brought the subject up) is the very fact that it was "the only democracy in the Middle East". But that claim became somewhat more problematical when you remembered that Israel and its allies have for decades been moving heaven and earth to keep the situation that way, against the wishes of the people in neighbouring countries.
UPDATE : And another pearl of wisdom from a Yahoo user -
"Can you imagine the Palestinians running the country on their own? No!"
Dear heavens, the Palestinians sound almost as useless as the Scots.
Sunday, May 22, 2011
Middle East peace can't be won by all take and no give
I despair of Benedict Brogan. He claims today in the Telegraph that President Obama's new stance on the Middle East peace process constitutes a "giveaway" to the Palestinians that would leave Israel "where it was before the Arab world tried to drive the Jews into the sea". But let's look at what Obama is and isn't actually saying. He suggests that a Palestinian state should be broadly based on the pre-1967 boundaries, but with land-swaps to square the circle of the enormous, illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank. He excludes the question of East Jerusalem altogether, even though it has an overwhelmingly Palestinian population, and like the West Bank was ruled by Jordan before 1967. He also leaves open the possibility that the Palestinian refugees from the 1948 war will have to give up the right of return to their homes in what is now Israel. So if all that constitutes a "giveaway", it rather begs the question of what on earth Brogan would see as a just peace. A Palestinian state consisting of just Gaza, and the rump of the West Bank that will be left once the prime swathes of land confiscated by Israeli settlers are ripped out? That wouldn't be so much a "giveaway", as a legitimisation of Israel's slow-motion "takeaway" over the last few decades.
Not even the most moderate of Palestinian negotiators would ever accept such a settlement, so what Brogan is offering is a prescription for ongoing conflict. How that will assist Israel's long-term security is something of a mystery.
Not even the most moderate of Palestinian negotiators would ever accept such a settlement, so what Brogan is offering is a prescription for ongoing conflict. How that will assist Israel's long-term security is something of a mystery.
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Israel's deceptive inequalities
An absolutely jaw-dropping story from Israel, where a Palestinian man has been jailed for having completely consensual sex with a woman, on the basis that it was "rape by deception" because he pretended to be a Jew. There a couple of issues here - the first and most obvious one being the question of race. Israel repeatedly scoffs at the notion that it is an apartheid state (although the similarities with pre-1990s South Africa are uncanny) but if a man can be jailed essentially for pretending to be a different race or religion than he is, what does that sound like to you? Quite honestly, it sounds like the sort of thing that might have happened in 1930s Germany.
But there's a broader issue as well, because clearly the 'rape by deception' law applies to Jews as well as Palestinians, and to a wide range of possible scenarios. In CNN's report, an expert gives a couple of examples of "meaningful" lies that could fall under the scope of the law, the first of which would be so outrageous that it could indeed only be defined as "rape", whereas the second is so daft it would probably criminalise about 10% of the population of the UK -
"For example, where a doctor persuades a woman to have sex claiming it would be a part of the medical treatment. As for this particular case...the court emphasized the fact that he claimed to be single while he was married, which would be relevant in the context of a romantic relationship."
The obvious question that forms in my mind at this point is - does this law really apply equally to all Israeli citizens, specifically to both men and women? Many countries frame their laws in such a way that it is either literally or virtually impossible for a woman to be guilty of rape, except perhaps in cases where she directly assists a man committing the offence. But whatever women's physical capabilities, they are certainly just as capable as men of luring a potential sexual partner by means of verbal dishonesty. So are Israeli jails full of women convicted of "rape-by-deception"? I have my doubts.
But there's a broader issue as well, because clearly the 'rape by deception' law applies to Jews as well as Palestinians, and to a wide range of possible scenarios. In CNN's report, an expert gives a couple of examples of "meaningful" lies that could fall under the scope of the law, the first of which would be so outrageous that it could indeed only be defined as "rape", whereas the second is so daft it would probably criminalise about 10% of the population of the UK -
"For example, where a doctor persuades a woman to have sex claiming it would be a part of the medical treatment. As for this particular case...the court emphasized the fact that he claimed to be single while he was married, which would be relevant in the context of a romantic relationship."
The obvious question that forms in my mind at this point is - does this law really apply equally to all Israeli citizens, specifically to both men and women? Many countries frame their laws in such a way that it is either literally or virtually impossible for a woman to be guilty of rape, except perhaps in cases where she directly assists a man committing the offence. But whatever women's physical capabilities, they are certainly just as capable as men of luring a potential sexual partner by means of verbal dishonesty. So are Israeli jails full of women convicted of "rape-by-deception"? I have my doubts.
Saturday, May 1, 2010
Frankie Boyle and humanity : the other side of the coin
Having criticised comedian Frankie Boyle in a recent post for his 'lack of humanity', I must admit I'm left with a totally different impression of him after reading this lengthy statement he's released in response to the BBC Trust's decision to apologise for a joke he made on Radio 4 about Israel's treatment of Palestinians -
"The situation in Palestine seems to be, in essence, apartheid. I grew up with the anti apartheid thing being a huge focus of debate. It really seemed to matter to everybody that other human beings were being treated in that way. We didn’t just talk about it, we did things, I remember boycotts and marches and demos all being held because we couldn’t bear that people were being treated like that.
A few years ago I watched a documentary about life in Palestine. There’s a section where a UN dignitary of some kind comes to do a photo opportunity outside a new hospital. The staff know that it communicates nothing of the real desperation of their position, so they trick her into a side ward on her way out. She ends up in a room with a child who the doctors explain is in a critical condition because they don’t have the supplies to keep treating him. She flounders, awkwardly caught in the bleak reality of the room, mouthing platitudes over a dying boy.
The filmmaker asks one of the doctors what they think the stunt will have achieved. He is suddenly angry, perhaps having just felt at first hand something he knew in the abstract. The indifference of the world. ‘She will do nothing,’ he says to the filmmaker. Then he looks into the camera and says, ‘Neither will you’.
I cried at that and promised myself that I would do something. Other than write a few stupid jokes I have not done anything. Neither have you."
"The situation in Palestine seems to be, in essence, apartheid. I grew up with the anti apartheid thing being a huge focus of debate. It really seemed to matter to everybody that other human beings were being treated in that way. We didn’t just talk about it, we did things, I remember boycotts and marches and demos all being held because we couldn’t bear that people were being treated like that.
A few years ago I watched a documentary about life in Palestine. There’s a section where a UN dignitary of some kind comes to do a photo opportunity outside a new hospital. The staff know that it communicates nothing of the real desperation of their position, so they trick her into a side ward on her way out. She ends up in a room with a child who the doctors explain is in a critical condition because they don’t have the supplies to keep treating him. She flounders, awkwardly caught in the bleak reality of the room, mouthing platitudes over a dying boy.
The filmmaker asks one of the doctors what they think the stunt will have achieved. He is suddenly angry, perhaps having just felt at first hand something he knew in the abstract. The indifference of the world. ‘She will do nothing,’ he says to the filmmaker. Then he looks into the camera and says, ‘Neither will you’.
I cried at that and promised myself that I would do something. Other than write a few stupid jokes I have not done anything. Neither have you."
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Ah ah ah I, I knew I was right
Except in the case of Andorra, who in spite of me wishing as hard as I could failed to make it through. Quite simply, the live performance didn't match the quality of the song (almost the exact reverse could be said of Malta). I also seem to have had something of a blind spot with Sweden, which most people were expecting would qualify but I thought would fall short. Probably it was distinctiveness that won the day there. But the qualifier that completely flabbergasted me was Finland - the song is OK but the performance was as uninspiring as in the rehearsals. It can't be put down to political voting so it will remain a mystery (unless it transpires it was the song saved by the juries). So in the end I only correctly predicted seven out of the ten qualifiers, although in my defence I did say that Israel were the next most likely qualifiers (on the subject of which, what has Mira Awad done with her hair?).I said last night I would be voting for Bosnia, unless there was some sort of revelation in the live performances. As it turned out, there was a revelation, and ironically it came from a song I already rated highly - Portugal. As much as I loved the song, I couldn't imagine it translating well to the Eurovision stage, but I couldn't have been more wrong. So, for the second year in a row, I voted for Portugal!
Thoughts on the show itself - well, I'm not sure 'magic buttons' are really much of an improvement on envelopes. It's still not too late for a drastic rethink before Thursday night, though. How about a 'magic tree', from which a 'magic apple' falls off every time you give it a good shake. And then the apple 'magically' splits open to reveal the name of a qualifier for the final. No? Oh well, just a thought.
Saturday, February 21, 2009
How to have your cake and eat it, Israeli-style
Further to my tweet about Israel earlier, it does seem extraordinary that Peres can call on the leader of the second-largest party to form a government on the strength of backing from small ultra-right parties, and yet Netanyahu can then immediately attempt to sideline those parties and instead bring Kadima into his coalition. Surely in these circumstances the nature of the coalition should be settled before the premiership? If Netanyahu feels it's so essential to form a centrist/centre-right coalition with the largest single party, he should surely be forced to accept the leader of that party has the stronger claim to hold the post of Prime Minister.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)