For a fistful of books

Mohamed Salmawy, Egyptian journalist and president of the Egyptian Writers Union, among others, called for the boycott of the Turin Book Fair in May. The boycotters object to Israel being the ‘guest of honour’ this year at the fair. They feel insulted because of the Israeli state’s politics towards the Palestinians. Tariq Ramadan, who joined the boycott being always so keen not to miss an opportunity to be in the news, states that it is

neither normal nor decent to commemorate Israel when Israeli state and government policies in the devastated occupied territories are clear for all to see.

Countries are invited, I believe, as guests of honour to celebrate their literature not their politics, the clue being in the words ‘book fair’. If politics should determine the nationality of the writers invited, will Tariq Ramadan boycott the fair next year when Egypt will be the guest?
Funnily enough, there’s a book fair going on in Cairo right now, which I understand is the most important in the Arab world. Guess what! The Egyptian police have seized boxes of books deemed subversive or immoral, such as For bread alone by Mohamed Choukri, The unbearable lightness of being by Milan Kundera etc. Last year, according to Al-Jazeera you could buy editions of the Mein Kampf and other “anti-Christian polemics advocating conversion to Islam as the only solution to a flawed religion”. No protest there.
By the way, Palestinian writers have been invited but turned down the invite. Aside from the rather crucial fact that the book fair is not a political event, Israeli writers such as Amos Oz, Abraham Yehoshua and David Grossman have demonstrated great commitment towards dialogue and peace even in the face of personal tragedy as in the case of David Grossman, who lost his son in the last Lebanon war. What is there to boycott exactly?

Nick Cohen: left, right or wrong?

Nick Cohen, the Observer’s journalist, has taken to caricature the Left as a fascist cohort supporting militant Islam. I went to his talk at the Café Philo in Hampstead a week ago or so. He started his talk on 'what's left of the left' by expressing his shock and surprise at the support leftwing politicians and intellectuals give to militant Islam. Not sure what is surprising about some extremists on the left, i.e. those proclaiming that they are ‘all Hitzbollah now’, supporting religious and political obscurantism. After all, it wasn’t such a long time ago when most of the left was supporting of people such as Fidel Castro and even Ho Chi Min. What escapes Cohen is that there’s never been one socialist or liberal tradition, but many. Liberalism and socialism have shaped western democracy. They made possible the recognition of liberty and equality as fundamental to society. They also have a heavy baggage, which ranges from Stalinist dictatorships to unbridled capitalism.
Personally I think liberty and equality are two sides of the same coin of justice. After all, how can one be free to choose if one has no opportunities? There are still women around the world who do not own anything and are prevented to own by the society in which they live, they are often illiterate and simply do not count. The inequality they experience prevents them from being free. This I suppose makes me a liberal-socialist in the tradition of Italian liberal-socialism (a strong and great movement), headed by Carlo and Nello Roselli.
Nick Cohen, obviously ignorant of history, philosophy and politics, bundles together politicians, journalists and various intellectuals from the centre and the left (whatever that means today) under the banner of liberals. His aim is to create an enemy with whom to wage war and thus justify his stance in favour of the war in Iraq. Yes, he’s that pathetic.
It’s the oldest and cheapest trick: decry the opposition instead of engaging with the arguments.
I haven't read his book 'What's left', nor do I plan to read it. However, as I was browsing it, I've stumbled on a heavily loaded sentence where he forces an association between the 3m-strong demonstration against the war in Iraq in Rome back in 2003 with the Italian fascist regime, Rome having been the capital under the Mussolini dictatorship. Except Rome started off as a republic, which makes it, as far as I know, the first example of a republic in history (with Athens being the first democracy).
For Cohen, the war in Iraq is all about removing an evil dictator regardless of the disaster this has brought and regardless of what else could have been done instead. Ultimately, he doesn’t understand that our democracies are grounded on the respect of human life. It is true that there are people who support Hitzbollah and make excuses for radical Islamic terrorism. There are also people who are just as contemptuous of human life and advocate war (in Iraq, Iran etc.) regardless of the consequences. Nick Cohen seems to be one of them. Has Nick Cohen reached the bottom? What's left of him?

Mastrogiacomo freed at too high a price

Italian opposition MPs have criticised the government for arranging with the Afghan government to free five Taliban prisoners in exchange for an Italian journalist who was kidnapped in southern Afghanistan on March 5, as reported on the FT.
When I first heard about Daniele Mastrogiacomo, I thought of the destiny of many journalists and even tourists who are abducted by terrorists across the globe. I therefore added the appeal to my blog. I'm glad he's free, however, I find difficult to justify this 'trading' of captured terrorists for his release. I'm also appalled that the Italian Left (Government and press) has hardly spared any thoughts for the 'driver', Sayed Agha, who was beheaded by the Talibans. They are 'celebrating' Mastrogiacomo's release. However, his freedom has cost Italy dearly. Will Italian tourists be kidnapped knowing that the government will give in to terrorists? Mastrogiacomo was in Afghanistan looking for an interview with a Taliban. He should have known about the risks. Should the government be responsible for someone who puts his life at risk so willingly? I do not think so.

Mastrogiacomo

Is Israel splitting the Jews?

The recent debate on the divergence of opinion within the Jewish community on Israel seems to highlight the ideological resonance of Israel. This is so for Jews and non-Jews alike. The Israel/Palestine conflict is not a conflict any more, but an ideological battle. The issue has become so polarised that it is impossible to ascertain facts and envisage a solution. Any solution will be seen as defeat of one side. Israel’s symbolical significance is now not only confined to the Jewish community, but is echoed in the ideas propagated by opinion formers when discussing the conflict. Israel is seen as the main cause of instability in the Middle East, the American Jewish lobby as the most powerful. Both assumptions are wrong.
The Middle East is unstable due to a number of factors, including Saudi Arabia's politics. American 'pro-Israel' policy, which incidentally is relatively recent, has only been influenced in part by the Jewish lobby. The geo-political situation, the fact that Israel is a pro-western democracy situated in a strategic location have had much more of an impact. Similarly the defence of Israel as the only free and democratic country in the Middle East is blind to Israeli internal inequalities and Israel’s occupation. This polarisation has exacerbated the split within the Jewish community where a section feels that criticism would be betrayal of one’s own community and others feel lack of criticism is betrayal of Jewish values. The title of a recent Observer article ‘the new Jewish question’ rests on the assumption that Israel has a stake in defining Jewish identity. How far should responsibility for Israeli actions be extended to Jews around the world?

Scoop...

Scoop! Israel has nuclear weapons!
Olmert might not have meant it but his gaffe showed how ridiculous Israel's policy of 'nuclear ambiguity' is. They do themselves no favour by asking him to resign.
On the positive side, the peace process might be back on track.

Off to the playground, boys!

...Told you it was propaganda! Not that there were any doubts, however Ahmadinejad forgot to “scientifically study the Holocaust and listen to both sides before reaching a conclusion" and went on to repeat his onslaught against Israel at his (?) conference. According to the Guardian, "the president, who has dismissed the murder of six million Jews by the Nazis as a myth told up to 70 visiting speakers that the Israeli state would soon be wiped out".
Sooner that you can say 'wiped out' and here come Bolton and Dershowitz trying to charge Ahmadinejad with incitement to genocide.
Now, if this wasn't an armswrestling between the US and Iran it would actually be interesting. When is it legitimate to intervene?
The fact is that states (those that are signatories of the Geneva convention) are under obligation to intervene in case of genocide. But when do states decide that it's genocide? They waited an awful long time before intervening in Rwanda, in fact the US and France did their best to avoid calling it a genocide.
Under the Geneva convention, 'direct and public incitement to commit genocide' is punishable. Mhm, in reality I can't see the UN going ahead with something like this. The point is that Iran and the US are playing at radicalising positions. It reminds one of the Cold War, doesn't it?
We've seen what this competition has led to in Lebanon, time they leave diplomacy and international affairs to grown-ups. Now, off to the playground, boys!

Shocking, ridiculous and stupid?

Tony Blair condemned the conference on the holocaust organised by Iran as being “shocking, ridiculous and stupid". I reckon it is President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad teasing the West once again about Israel so to raise his profile and establish popular support. According to HaAretz “many Iranians admitted to embarrassment about the event, which follows Iran's decision to hold a competition for cartoons about the Holocaust in October”. The conference is therefore some sort of way of ‘getting it back’ following the Danish cartoons’ incident. The claim made is that, if offensive Danish cartoons were allowed on the ground of freedom of speech, so should the conference. The problem with this reasoning, however, is that it fails to recognise that the Danish cartoons were an opinion, an offensive one maybe, but not a statement of fact.
That’s why I don’t think it helps when people complain that the conference is offensive. That’s not an argument. The point is that it’s bad history and it’s a propagandistic distortion of the facts. Propaganda has political ends, in this case is aimed at establishing Iran as a Middle East ‘superpower’ in competition with Israel and the United States, among other things. I believe it is these political ends one ought to grapple with, not on whether a biased conference is insulting. Ahmadinejad says the conference ‘Review of the Holocaust: Global Vision’ is to “scientifically study the Holocaust and listen to both sides before reaching a conclusion". Given his views, we can confidently say that’ll mostly be propaganda. However, to denigrate it doesn’t answer the allegation. Sadly, one doesn’t stop propaganda by ignoring it, but by showing historical evidence and unmasking the real aims of the conference. Historians should have attended to reiterate the overwhelming evidence. This would have also provided us with the opportunity to see how many would have been forbidden to attend. For example, Khaled Mahameed, an Arab-Israeli and Muslim lawyer, said on Monday to HaAretz “that Iran had refused him permission to attend the conference, where he had planned to confront those who deny the Nazi genocide took place.” Perhaps the organisers might want to explain that!
“Meanwhile, the Simon Wisenthal Center on Monday called for signatories to a petition to the United Nations condemning the conference. The center has also organized a convention "simultaneous to the Tehran hate-fest," it said, called Witness To The Truth.”
Things like this, however, make many within world Jewry uncomfortable. Some feel that the holocaust has been exploited to justify any action taken by the State of Israel against its enemies. British Rabbi Ahron Cohen, who went to the conference, said "we certainly say there was a Holocaust, we lived through the Holocaust. But in no way can it be used as a justification for perpetrating unjust acts against the Palestinians." The holocaust is still fresh in most Jewish memories and antisemitism is still around. However, there are people who, because of the holocaust, feel they need to defend any action Israel takes because it could happen again and Israel would be the only place where jews could find refuge. Yet, I believe survival means refusal to identify oneself as victim. We should not forget, we should always remember, but memory should lead us to act with justice so that it doesn’t happen again, to anyone.

In search of peace in Lebanon

I feel a strong sense of deja-vu; no, not 1982, but 1967. Back then, at the height of the cold war, the US and the USSR were sworn enemies fighting the war by proxy. Today, the US has managed to recreate a situation where the West fights the East by proxy or sometimes directly (Iraq). After destabilising Iraq (didn’t we say so?), the Middle East is rapidly changing shape. In the first few weeks of this latest conflict between Israel and Hizbollah, the US seemed to dawdle, or did they? They were keen to go on with their ‘war on terror’ and democratisation by bombs, this time by proxy.

At first I thought Israel was being rather incompetent from a military strategic point of view. You cannot go to war with terrorists, it’s a contradiction in terms. Vietnam springs to mind where terrorists were hiding among the farmers. How do you fight a war like that? You don’t. Ariel Sharon wouldn’t have, but he could, he was an ex-general, ex-Likud, and above everything else, he was Sharon. Olmert, by contrast, is fighting to gain a strong enough position that would allow him to negotiate. He’s fighting the wrong war, a war he cannot win or be seen to win. That’s why the EU and the UN need to step in and impose a truce. Of course the latest UN resolution is flawed, but it’s open enough for the parties to fill the gaps once the hostilities have come to a halt.

I believe the parties should agree to the resolution, a UN contingent with Chapter VII mandate should be set up as soon as possible and should be sufficiently big to uphold the ceasefire. This should be followed by multi-party talks on a peace process agreement which should include an agreement on Israel and Palestine but also Syria, Iran and Lebanon and their responsibilities in backing Hizbollah and Hamas. Hizbollah’s objection to the resolution on the grounds that it would allow Israel to maintain its occupation while a UN force is put in place is utterly preposterous considering that Hizbollah is not and does not represent a state. Hizbollah has, therefore, no sovereignty over the territory now occupied by Israeli forces. The big loser is Lebanon, a state without control over itself. But perhaps it is not sovereignty we should worry about, but security and peace. If one is always under threat (be it rockets or missiles), there can be no peace. Similarly, if there’s no peace process, there is no security. It is time to kiss goodbye to unilateralism and terror (from all sides). It’s time to talk and talk and then talk some more, because it’ll take years to reshape a secure and peaceful Middle East. We have a great opportunity now to sit at the table and tackle head on nuclear ambitious and disarmament, energy, occupied territories and cross-border co-operation, disbandment of militias and economic development. It is down to the EU to steer the world in this direction and go for the long term view. This is the only path to democracy.

Conspiratory certainties

I have come across a few semi-conspiracy theories on the web from ‘either’ side. Conspiracy theories are jolly good fun and are very useful from a psychological and sometimes political point of view too. They ask the right questions but fail on the answers, because like everybody else they want 'easy answers', it's always a plot. Politics is a series of cock-ups, so there's NEVER a plot. As war is the continuation of politics by other means, it follows that war is a series of violent cock-ups. What is striking of the current ‘semi-conspiracies’ is that they are based on narratives: an oppressed people (Palestinians) or a people who fight against the odds for survival and affirmation (Israel), an imperialist superpower (US) or a fundamentalist rogue state (Iran). These narratives have nothing to do with reality but they fit our TV screens perfectly. Wars and news post-CNN have a different grammar. TV tells an uncomplicated story, does not report news, it feeds us shocking drama not analysis. Any conflict is understood only as blood and tears and children, and always a perpetrator and a victim. Within this framework, only a Manichean logic can be applied, you are either in favour or against. Of course, there’s plenty of embellished off-the-shelf explanations such as the colonial or post-colonial (if you’re really smug) narrative which has passed its sell-by-date long ago and it really shouldn’t have been thought of in the first place!

That’s why I don’t sign petitions although I think a ceasefire (and more) is needed. A section of the Left has decided that imperialist Israel is invading Lebanon, bringing only destruction and creating hatred. However, this is not a conflict between Israel and Lebanon, nor one between Israel and Hizbollah. A section of the right thinks Israel is fighting against terrorism and anti-Western fundamentalism. However, the Iranian population (and many members of the government), as it used to be the case in Iraq, is not anti-American. Hizbollah is not on the same side as al-Quaida. There are many divisions in the Middle East and the only way forward is to grasp their meaning. By contrast, a narrative gives you certainty, tidies up an absurd world, but we live in this absurd world.

Paranoid Niall Ferguson - Complexity is the stuff of life

Not so long ago I was sent an article by Niall Ferguson entitled The origins of the Great War of 2007 and how it could have been prevented
The article relies heavily on the trite argument that a reluctant attitude to engaging in conflict with oppressive regimes is appeasement and has the potential for erupting into a ‘great war’. In effect, Ferguson is advocating a war against Iran in the name of spreading democracy, Iraq – part two. He’s a firm believer and does not seem to accept any other reality, like the descent of Iraq into civil war, the reluctance and obstruction of the US to allow democratic elections in Iraq and so on. Somehow I’m fascinated by such blind faith that sees no evil (in one camp at least) and reiterates its basic tenet of democratisation through the war on terror now re-branded ‘the long war’. Ferguson, alongside his neo-con friends, gives signs of paranoia. Unlike them, however, he’s an historian and historian should refrain from playing politics. His call to arms (against Iran) erases complexity from past and present reality with the brush of ideology. Ferguson argues in his work for a liberal empire (read USA) spreading democracy to oppressive regimes (albeit not those with nuclear capability) through active engagement (read ‘bombs’).
To spread democracy by waging war delegitimises democracy and takes away its very meaning. Democracy is founded on civil and political rights such as free speech and freedom of assembly; on a free press and an exchange with the outside world, and is exercised by civil society.
The ugly reality of oppressive regimes makes the process of democratisation difficult and particularly slow. Democratisation is not, alas, for the impatient or the obstinate. Ferguson is to historians what celebrity chefs are to professional chefs, they make up for their lack of talent with shouting.
If the neo-cons, like Ferguson, opened their eyes, they would see the discontent and frustration of Iranian youth, their aspirations for freedom, and the democratic reforms and moves (albeit weak and patchy) achieved in Iran in recent years, partly due to the efforts of the EU.
In fact, if European member states worked together in foreign policy instead of against one another, much more progress would have been made by now through ‘soft power’ to spread democracy. Iran has a complex reality (see article on Prospect) that needs not radicalising, but Ferguson likes simple ideas like the one of pre-emption to be implemented more or less only by the US on the alleged grounds of being a ‘liberal democracy’.
Simple ideas are dangerous. They essentialise certain aspects of reality while obliterating others. All is seen through the kaleidoscope of ideology with no regard for complexities, contradictions and plurality, the very essence of democracy. I’m reminded of a parable, of Nimrod wanting to build unity through dominance and control, through the tower of Babel. The only way out of anarchy was the annihilation of diversity, of different points of views and lifestyles. And God intervened and confounded their speech.

The village idiots

Nothing to do with Iraq. There is, strictly speaking, no causal link between the war in Iraq and the London bombing. Iraq was just another example of our rapacious or misguided foreign policy, depending on whether you believe our government to be malevolent or hopelessly incompetent. I opt for a combination of the two, being the cynic that I am.
In the same guise as we have been patronised throughout the Iraq war campaign, since the first terrorist attack in London, we have been fed with the trite rhetoric on the evil of terrorism and illiberal fanaticism endangering our lives and liberties.
Our lives are not, we are told, endangered by an illegal occupation that has sparked terrorism in the country of Iraq (although we do say so to Israel). Our liberties are not endangered by biometric ID cards, endless opting out from the European Convention on Human Rights, but by some wicked fanatic resenting our wealth.
There are many reasons behind terrorism, and I do believe that a fundamental ‘envy’ for our wealth and democracy accompanies every action. On the other hand, who imposed dictatorships in the illiberal and undemocratic countries we are fighting? Who opposed elected parties to be in power because they were Islamic? It is the hypocrisy and inconsistency of our Western governments that I can’t stomach more than their superficial rhetoric.
Walking down the streets of London a day after the latest incident, I’ve come across front pages proclaiming unity. The nation is united, they say. I doubt it. In fact, people are increasingly uncomfortable with the protraction of a war they never wanted. How do British Muslims feel? Betrayed by those who call themselves ‘their brothers’ for attacking their country and killing innocent people? Betrayed by their country for attacking Iraq and killing innocent people?
The nation, or the Daily Mail, might be united in their shock, horror, anger, fear and also suspicion and hatred. This is what violence brings about, not the end of occupation or peace agreements, not democracy and freedom, but fear and hatred.
On the tube I had a couple of thoughts: one was for Tony (and it was rude). The other was about the phenomenon of suicide bombing that is reliant on terrorist techniques invented, employed and exported by European anarchists, and, of course, made ‘legitimate weapon’ in recent conflicts in Northern Ireland and Israel.
Many think violence works and can end conflict. They are those carrying explosives in their rucksack and those ordering their army to attack. The two are not the same, far from it, the difference is politics.
That is why Hamas was quick at condemning the London bombing. They have now gained political power and don’t want to lose it. Al-Quaeda has a lot of ‘military’ power, has enormous influence over minds, but it is not a political entity. That’s also what makes their terrorism difficult to prevent, predict and battle against. There is very little political message, only hatred. The only way to stop hatred is by stopping fear. I felt totally powerless while crossing the centre of London on the tube, but I couldn’t let fear take over.
Out of fear, we went to war in Iraq (fear of losing strategic political and economic prominence); out of fear, we refuse to let Islamic parties take control. We impose our rule, we know best, we will deliver democracy. I’m sure ‘they’ have a lot of growing up to do in democratic terms, but until we let go of the hand, they will never walk. As long as we treat as pariahs political entities we disapprove of, they will fight against us, not with us. They will make it easier for more extreme fringes to act and attract following.
The government fumbles in the dark, wanting to be tough, and inevitably ends up mirroring the other side. Between the rock of terrorism and the hard place of a tough government, we are the village idiots taken for a ride to the risk of our lives.

Hard Times

When she was freed, Giuliana Sgrena, the Italian journalist kidnapped in Iraq, was told to be careful because the US wanted her dead. She took no notice at that time until US soldiers shot at her. Nicola Calipari, the international operations chief of Italy's military intelligence service, was shot in the head as he tried to shield her. According to the Washington Post, the US had been notified that the car taking Ms. Sgrena to the airport was coming to the checkpoint. The driver said that they were travelling at 20-30mph, so why were they shot at? It also seems that the US soldiers waited 15 mins before calling for help. Why? According to Ms. Sgrena, the US don't like the payment of ransom and that was their way to stop it.
Instinctively I would be cautious and refrain from blaming soldiers for a premeditated attack. On the other hand, many other episodes come to mind: the tragedy of the Cermis of the 3rd February 1998, when the pilot of a fighter of the US Marine Corps performed reckless acrobatics and cut the carrying cable of the Cermis cableway, causing the fall of one of the two gondolas and the death of 20 persons. Although the American Court Martial acquitted the pilot and the navigator, the enquiry made by the Italian Parliamentary Commission of Enquiry clearly showed the responsibility of the crew members and their superiors.
Not to mention Ustica when, in 1980, the Alitalia passengers plane was shot down by ... err, we still don't really know. It seems that American or French naval aircraft launched an air-to-air missile at a Libyan fighter aircraft detected in the area. Since then, the 'allies' have done everything possible to cover up.
One should never underestimate incompetence, recklessness and ruthlessness, yet often there's also malice.
Hard times for Italy.

Farhenheit 9/11

I went to see Farhenheit 9/11 yesterday. It's not a good film. It's slow, long-winding and has no coherent structure, but worth watching. I've never liked Michael Moore because his arguments are simplistic and exaggerated. Nevertheless, its focus on the very 'patriotic' woman who loses her son in Iraq is very welcomed. It is a reminder of what war is to all those idiots who were (and some still are) in favour of the war in Iraq. I particularly dislike those empty and flawed arguments about going to war (mostly focusing on Russian & French oil interests) that diregard human life, especially when advocating humanitarianism.
Who knows? Farhenheit 9/11 might even help John Kerry!

With Courage and Dignity

I was surprised to flick through some Italian papers and read that Fabrizio Quattrocchi (read Kuattrokki) had become a hero. I wasn’t clear why somebody who was picked randomly and killed with a shot on his head had become a hero. It sounded like an exaggeration, like some pathetic emotionalism, but it wasn’t. Quattrocchi realised what was happening, tried to take the hood off and told his executor “I show you how an Italian dies”, with courage and dignity.
I’m not indulging in nationalistic pride, I’m simply finding out how little I know of ‘how an Italian dies’. Italy shies away from portraying its own courage and heroism and feels embarrassed by it. It is the heavy legacy of fascism, ‘Italy’ was something we weren’t brought up to respect, but to be ashamed of. Won WWI but used as a tool for the exchange of territories, lost WWII being occupied both by the ‘Allies’ and the Germans (the Germans effectively occupied Italy after the fall of the fascist regime in September 1943).
Italians don’t like war, they repudiated it after WWII and enshrined this in the 1948 Constitution. So, at school we hardly talked of the battle of the Piave, never mind the last charge of the Savoy at Isbucevski, or the martyrs of Cephalonia where General Gandin held a referendum among his troops asking whether they wanted to fight hopelessly or surrender and they chose to fight. Or El Alamein when the British butchered a small squadron isolated from other troops and so on.
It doesn’t fit the Italian stereotype, the stereotype Italians believe themselves, so this post is for me to push me into studying Italian history a bit more.

Ehm... NO!

Mo Mowlam has called on the British and American governments to open talks with Osama bin Laden and al Qaida around a negotiating table.

Mo, your recipe for Northen Ireland doesn't apply everywhere. Osama is probably dead and Al Quaida is not the IRA (hierarchical organisation), but a loose network! No, you can't negotiate not even if you wanted (which wouldn't lead you anywhere, at least now). The way forward is to increase police and intelligence cooperation, stop bombing places and changing regimes and increase EU development and governance work.

Warbonkers!

The war has been used by all sides to score political points with the terrorists being the only obvious winner. If you are in favour of the war, you cause terrorism and if you are against, you side with the terrorists. This is only facile criticism that lacks any understanding of the present situation.
Around 90% of Spanish people were against the war, however Aznar's Government disregarded the will of his electorate and went to war. Had things turned out well, i.e. WMD, more security, Iraq more stable etc. Aznar (and Blair & Bush) would have been forgiven and proven right. But since events have proven the 'other side' right: more terrorism (even in Iraq where there was no terrorism), no WMD and civil war in Iraq, people are angry and scared.
The problem is that Bush, Blair & Aznar made the connection Iraq-Al Quaeda implying that invading Iraq would have made our cities more secure. The only link between Iraq and Al Quaeda is perception. It is how this war is perceived by the propagandists in the Muslim-Arab world. They see it as a Christian-Zionist crusade, as the military and economic might of the West attacking the weak and exploited East & South. They saw two world's powers by-passing international law for their interests, making false accusations against Iraq (WMD), only to cause death and chaos.
Reality does not matter, this perception leads many angry and disillusioned people in the Middle East and beyond to support Al-Quaeda. Maybe Jenny Tonge understands them too. The point, though, is not to understand but to take up the challenge of terrorism.
Terrorism gives us a great 'opportunity', Europeans should not respond the way Washington did after 9/11, we should have vision and courage. We should increase police and intelligence cooperation instead of having our own Guantanamo Bay at Belmarsh, we should integrate immigrants instead of imposing assimilation (as France is doing by opposing headscarves, and Blunkett by 'testing' citizenship, introducing oaths, pushing for immigrants to speak english in their own homes, marry here etc). We should increase the EU projects of development that further governance, infrastructure, accountability & democratisation.
We should NOT withdraw our troops now, we should push for the UN to step in. If we fail in Iraq, it will be another victory for terrorism.

Todos Somos Madrilenos

198 dead and 1400 wounded. Aznar's Government is still trying to blame ETA because they know ETA, they can deal with it, but also because admitting that it was, at least partly, Al-Quaida means acknowledging that it was Spain's part in the war in Iraq that made it the victim. It follows that next in line are the UK and Italy and then Japan and Australia. It is no coincidence that clues lead to the Abu Hafs al-Nasri Brigades, responsible for the attack against the Italians in Nassiriya last November.
After the 11th of September 2001, the Bush administration declared war against terrorism. The whole idea is ludicrous. Can a state combat a network by waging war against another state? Of course not, at a time when the whole world was with the US, the way ahead was to increase cooperation. We should have stopped financial flows (why didn't we pay banks to close accounts? They know where the money comes from!), we should have intensified intelligence work and also further international law and democracy. What did we do? We went to war with Afghanistan because we suddenly saw it as an oppressive regime, however those belonging to Al-Quaida or the Talibans were 'unlawful combatants' therefore when captured they do not 'qualify' as prisoners of war. This means there can be no trial, no investigation, no international law upheld.
We also wasted intelligence resources to desperately find something on Iraq with no success and by-passed the UN to wage war against Iraq which had nothing to do with terrorism but Saddam was a bad guy.
Some of you might think that we need to be tough with these people, but you are forgetting why we want to fight terrorism and what terrorism is. Terrorism is a strategy that aims at delegitimising the state, its victim is democracy, the dead are its pawns. That is why the only effective way to fight it is by upholding the rule of law and democracy and ditching double standards. The Bush administration is totally blind to our new reality, they are using it to justify invading where it suits them when they are still financing oppressive regime (ever heard of Uzbekistan and Krygystan for example?). The US wasn't the only country that took advantage of the war of terror to justify curtailing rights and freedoms at home and abroad: Russia, Colombia, Mexico, Argentina and even Spain did so. We can also add Blunkett's blueprint for a police-state Britain.
Bush & Blair painted terrorism as the new Empire of Evil, clinging to an ideology that will justify any breach of what we are actually trying to preserve. To believe their propaganda is to allow terrorism to win.

A take on Israel

I find the Israel/Palestine conflict is generally being tackled in a simplistic manner but then, again, I'm a pedantic sod!

1. Terrorism: it is a strategy used to terrorise people indiscriminately and it can be used by states, individual and groups although states are more likely to use 'state-sponsored' terrorism as in the case of Somoza in Nicaragua using US funded & trained freedom fighters.

2. Just War Theory: I seem to come across many who partly condone Palestinian terrorism because it is in defence or retaliation against Israel's aggressive policies. Although I categorise myself as a pacificistic (not a pacifist, it means that we should be working towards peace but that for now we cannot totally do away with war), I accept some tenets of Just War Theory. Terrorism, though, clashes with most part of it by being indiscriminate and disproportionate. Some (some among the Sinners, as in Sinn Fein) maintain that it was violence that brought about the Northern Ireland Assembly and therefore it shows that violence can work. I disagree with this view, I believe it is democracy that brings about peace.

3. 'Innocent by-standers': I think in some instances omission is culpability, however it is down to individuals not the population as a whole. There are many Israelis working together with Palestinians and many who march in protest to Sharon's policies but this receives very little publicity.

4. Boycotts: nobody mentioned this so I think it might be worth making a comment. In the case of Israel, we are dealing with a democracy that is occupying a foreign territory. Israel's government is therefore legitimate and it is not applying apartheid (there's certainly discrimination, but Israeli Arabs can vote and get elected etc). I don't think a boycott is legitimate. Apart from the obvious consequences of damaging the Palestinian economy, it just doesn't make sense. When the UK invaded Kosovo (without a UN resolution and making a mess of it), Afghanistan and Iraq, did we all stop buying British? Did we leave the country? No.

5. Solution?: Sanctions would make more sense but they simply wouldn't work and they should also be applied to the Palestinian Authority. What about all the EU money given to 'educational programmes' in Palestine which go straight to indoctrination and the funding of terrorism? I believe only an international agreement could stop the violence on both sides. Unfortunately, without the US, such an agreement would be futile.

Now, you can read my briefing!

Cui Prodest?

The Hutton 'Whitewash' is a farce. I'm not clear how Lord Hutton can say that Scarlett may have subconsciously been influenced by the Prime Minister to produce a stronger dossier.
Subconsciously???? Didn't Campbell make changes in the dossier?
Dr Kelly's name was bound to come up but the Government wanted it out as soon as possible. Didn't the MOD let journalists guess Dr Kelly's name?
Didn't the MOD leave Dr Kelly in the hands of the Foreign Affairs Committee to be attacked by Labour MPs in their battle against the BBC?
The BBC have been sloppy and their report was single-sourced, but wasn't the 45mins claim single-sourced too?

Controversial or Ignorant?

Jenny Tonge has provoked outrage and sympathy with her remarks on Palestinian terrorism:

"This particular brand of terrorism, the suicide bomber, is truly born out of desperation...Many, many people criticise, many, many people say it is just another form of terrorism, but I can understand and I am a fairly emotional person and I am a mother and a grandmother. I think if I had to live in that situation, and I say this advisedly, I might just consider becoming one myself."

The meaning of understanding: on one hand, understanding refers to comprehending the dynamics behind a problem; on the other hand, it implies sympathising with what you are talking about and therefore feel pity or find some justification for it.
While at University, I've researched sexual violence and later on terrorism. I therefore have some knowledge of the dynamics behind these problems, but I would never dream to say that I understand why somebody who has been using pornography for years can go on and rape somebody else. The point of research is to find out what the problem is about, how it happens, why and what you can do about it. In Tonge's sentence, understanding means sympathising, because, she says, terrorism comes from desperation, which brings me to her LACK of understanding.

Lack of understanding: Apart from the fact that the 2nd Intifada is significantly different from the first one in terms of strategy, rationale and weapons, terrorism does not stem from "bitterness, desperation and poverty". Terrorism throughout the world has always been very well organised and funded. It is a rather complex phenomenon and there's a wealth of literature on the subject for those who are interested.

From the Jaffe Center for Strategic Studies

Every suicide attack has three components: 1) a person with at least one motive and a willingness to carry out the attack 2) a system with a technical infrastructure to facilitate the planning and execution of the suicide attack 3) a decision to launch the attack by those who control the system.
They identify 4 main types of Palestinian terrorists: the Religious fanatic, the Nationalist fanatic, the Avenger and the Exploited (for more click here).

Second time for Jenny: This is the second time Tonge strikes with such a comment. Back in June, she compared the situation in Gaza with apartheid while her 'friend' Jewish Labour MP Oona King compared it to the Warsaw Ghetto. In Social Sciences comparisons are made to highlight differences and the complexities surrounding each particular case. They are also a way to make the PhD sexier. In this instance it just shows ignorance of the present and the past. There is an occupation and a conflict in Israel/Palestine, not a systematic destruction of an ethnic/religious/national group based on hatred.

Third time lucky?: later Tonge wrote on The Guardian that "the methods being used by the Israelis on reflection are not really 'Warsaw Ghetto' or apartheid". You would think that maybe writing prompted some reflection but in her article she still says that "Oona is of Jewish origin but is not a religious Jew". Does that mean that all religious Jews are in favour of Israeli policies or hate Palestinians?

Get a grip Jenny! True. Sensible comments don't make the headlines, but cheap and ignorant comments don't make good headlines. I don't think you stirred up the debate at all, you just abdicated the use of your brain and followed your emotions. Shall I suggest a visit to an endocrinologist?
Sorry for being harsh, but, you know, it's that time of the month! :)