The Jewish people have a peculiar history with its own tragic mixture of oppression and glory. One outcome of this is the present State of Israel, and the state of the Middle East.
Central to today's discourse is the notion of the "Jewish State", which Palestinians are warned to embrace (e.g. recently by Netanyahu), or face the consequences. But what is this Jewish State? And why is the Jewish religion unique in claiming its right to statehood?
We do not hope to answer these questions here, but they should be posed. One thing that is clear however, is that the phrase "Jewish State" has had many different connotations over the decades and centuries. Theodore Herzl's (1896) "Der Judenstaat" is one possible starting-point. This raised most of the key issues:
What would the boundaries of such a state be? Specifically, what about Jerusalem?
Who would be entitled to live there?
Would education and law etc. have to be fundamentally Jewish - and if so, what does 'fundamental' mean?
What would be the rights of non-Jewish people in the Jewish state - and what would be the rights of Jewish people elsewhere?
How would Israel live with its neighbours?
These ambiguities remain today. It makes no sense to accept or refute "Israel as a Jewish State" unless the ambiguities are resolved. The concept is a pig in a poke (sorry to be so 'non-kosher').
Comparable and equally pressing questions also exist regarding "the Palestinian state" and its right to exist, but these get little coverage. (Note: we do not say "Palestine as an Islamic state", for scarcely anybody is demanding this.)
Today, some 100 years after Herzl, the website jewishstate.com is attempting to clarify the debate, while sanitising the language. Their demands remind me of "the language police", and include the following:
Are we allowed to write "Jewish state" (small 's')?
"No," say the language police, "it's 'Jewish State', a proper name. There are not two or five Jewish states, just one Jewish State. ... anti-Semites, like the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church-USA speak of Israel as if its mission were identical to that of France." (The fact that identical arguments applies to "the Palestinian State" seems not to be noted .... )
the word "Settlement"
This word should not be used: "'Settlement' carries so much baggage that the speaker automatically earns a place of honor at the council of anti-Semitic crusaders and jihadists."
the words "fighter" and "militant" (as applied to Palestinians)
"No, sorry anti-Semitic journalists, it's "terrorist". Any person who kills civilians to advance a political objective through intimidation qualifies for this term. That applies to killers of Jews just as much as killers of Europeans or Americans." So that's interesting. Does the IDA "kill civilians"? Is its aim "to advance a political objective through intimidation"? Surely not!
The above quotes are taken from Ezra Ben-Shalom (2009), which reminds me of the "language police".
Ezra Ben-Shalom (2009) Common mistakes in grammar and terminology that disrespect the Jewish State. www.jewishstate.com
(Am putting this in in draft form, as nobody else seems to have noticed this. JB)
I trust my good friend Vincent Cable, for verily he is an honest man. But the information about his expenses provides little information either way.
·50% or more of it is blacked out
Also, there is information over-kill: 500 pages for Vince alone; over a million pages in total. I am reminded of Saddam Hussein’s ruse when he was obliged to provide full details of his WMD programme. The TV newsreels showed a room full of ring-binders and CDs. Saddam thought he was being extremely clever and so no doubt do our MPs, who have been largely put up to this by the retiring Speaker Michael Martin whose last weekend in pist this is. (Like George W Bush and many naughty boys, he leaves the next incumbent to clear up the mess.)
I am far more interested in Tony Blair Esquire, who is now so filthy rich that the MP’s pig-trough is probably too small for him to show an interest in. What can we learn about him from these revelations?
Very little, as it turns out.
The first entry runs to three pages. However, so much is blacked out that the only information of any value is as follows:
It is a handwritten invoice (no heading, no signature, no date), containing the following information:
What use is this to anyone? We have no information about what ‘Goods’ were supplied, nor who D+J Jordan were (although a quick Google search reveals some off-licence premises at Trimdon in Blair’s district of Sedgefield – surely we are not paying for Tony’s booze?)
The scanned pages fall into three main categories:
"Additional Costs Allowance" - for costs incurred when staying overnight away from their main home
"Incidental Expenses Provision" – costs for running the MP's office
"Communications Allowance" - for MP communications with constituents.
According to the parliament sites, any editing is “to remove information which could cause serious security issues and breach the privacy of the MP, their staff and other third parties”.
There is also Tony’s claims from his “Winding up allowance”. These are payments “wholly, exclusively and necessarily incurred in winding up the parliamentary and constituency affairs or (sic!) the former Member of Parliament”
Source: p.3 of http://mpsallowances.parliament.uk/mpslordsandoffices/hocallowances/allowances-by-mp/tony-blair/Tony_Blair_0708_ACA.pdf
This document goes on for 53 pages, and quite honestly I don’t have time, energy or perseverance to read all of them. I know that Blair is a rogue. I know that fiddling expenses is very low on MP’s scales of roguishness. And quite honestly I think that the whole thing is a smokescreen to generate income for the Telegraph garner support for the Tories, and divert attention from managing the country which is what these guys and gals should be doing to earn their crust.
p.52 of the same document lists water and sewerage charges of “Mr C.L.Blair” (who he?) to cover the period up to 1st April 2008. There’s also a Council Tax bill for the same period. (Tony ceased being MP for Sedgefield in June 2007)
On 25th June 2007, Tony submitted a claim for £7659. This included a gas bill for £507 and one for £6990 for roof repairs and guttering. I wonder where and when this was done, as Tony had already resigned as MP before making this claim.
(Incidentally, am I the only one to have noticed that a large number of female Labour MPs seem to have come unstuck recently. Why is this - surely they can’t be more corrupt or inept than their male counterparts? I wonder what the true reason is. I haven’t noticed similar haemorrhaging where female Tories or Lib Dems are concerned.)
I assume this is legit, or the Fees Office would have spotted it. But what are their credentials for doing the job?
PS: I now find that according to The Times
“… some of Blair’s files covering claims for Myrobella, his constituency home, were destroyed by Commons officials” after they rejected an FOI request to see his claims.
(It is a criminal offence to destroy documents to prevent their disclosure under freedom of information (FOI) laws, but Blair’s people officials seem to have been unaware of this. Is this not odd, given that Blair headed the government that passed this legislation?)
Most leaders cannot be taken at face value, and Netanyahu least of all. But could a Palestinian group steal his thunder by saying something along the following lines ... ?
"Prime Minister Netanyahu's speech raised many detailed points with which we cannot agree. However in the spirit of peace and compromise proposed by Netanyahu, we wish to accept the following points.
We accept the need for a solution in which Jews as well as others can live in security and without fear.
We accept that massive wrongs have been done to the Jewish people, many of whom have strong and genuine religious beliefs relating to their rights over Palestine.
We accept that Jewish refugees are entitled to compassionate support.
We accept that historical realities have resulted in a Jewish state in the Middle East.
We accept that compromise will be necessary on many areas, including borders, Jerusalem and refugees.
However we believe that compromise will be necessary on both sides equally and in this spirit we are prepared to enter negotiations with just one condition - that no further building should be done by either side which could threaten the security of the other side."
If this could be said, then Netanyahu could be caught on the wrong foot. "If a stranger greet you, then grasp him firmly by the hand. If he is sincere you will have greeted him. If he is insincere, then at least you will have him partly immobilised".
I'm not clear if Steve disbelieves that global warming is happening, or whether he is just against cap-and-trade. If the latter, then I agree with him: a globally agreed carbon tax is what we should be going for. And until that's agreed, the major polluters should start with local taxes. (Yes, that means you, President Obama.)
I also agree with Steve that Gordon Brown is now dead in the water. He's even ceased to bother to come up for air. I'm not surprised. One of the worst things about Tony Blair is that he cleared the Labour Party of anybody interested in innovative thinking - apart from all the lickspittles.
But at least Blair had charisma and could crack the occasional joke. He also looked as though he knew where he was going - even if it was 180o in the wrong direction.
Admittedly Brown had some bad luck to start off with. The floods three weeks after he took over were clearly not his fault (Blair's, probably). But his first dithering was the failure to call an election in Autumn 2007. (But then, if he had, he would still have 3 years to run now and that is too dire tro contemplate.)
Brown and Darling have thrown money at the banks. Meanwhile, homelessness and child poverty are still major problems. (How many times did you see child poverty mentioned after the budget - compared with the zillions of crocodile tears over the long-overdue 50% income tax rate and the poor guys earning over £150,000 p.a.?)
I suspect that Murgatroyd agrees with this. He probably also agrees with my proposal for "Brown pounds". This was a way of resolving the credit crunch without enriching the banks and hoping for a bit of eventual trickle-down. Brown pounds would have been a freebie for everybody. So it would have been equalising, and not "more for those who have". The idea is that everybody in the UK would receive 1000 Brown pounds from the kind Mr Brown (or ten thousand, or some other figure). The only trick is that this money is for spending, not saving. So it has to be spent by Christmas Day (say). Any Brown Pounds not spent by then immediately turn into pumpkins and are worth nothing. Result: an instant boost to the economy; everybody feels good about the kind Mr Brown; and lots of pumpkins. The idea is so brilliant that I'm surprised Saint Vince Cable (our next Speaker) did not think of it first.
Of course, variants are possible (more for the poor; special arrangements for people about to lose their homes; phased payments rather than one-off, .....); and it has definitional problems (who exactly qualifies? how to prevent scams?) But compared with most taxes and subsidies it is relatively simple, and easy to manage and monitor.
But I do agree with Murgatroyd about short skirts ....
(My small contribution to the dancing in the streets at the York Press website, in response to the departure of Speaker Martin): A previous contributor said that "Gorbals Mick has been a disaster since Day 1"
I don't think it's true that he has been a disaster from Day 1 (also, I don't think he shd be called "Gorbals Mick", as he has specifically said he does not like the condescending tag). But I do feel he has been implicated in recent attempts to cover up and conceal information. I just hope it does not transpire that he has a personal reason for doing that.
Vote Vince Cable for King! (or Speaker at least, if he won't accept the monarchy)
It looks like Speaker Martin’s time is up. “Off with his head!” came the cry from scoundrels of all colours in the Commons today – as well as a few honest men.
It seems that Speaker Mick makes his own rules, which includes ruling out of order the motion that could have unseated him. In this he is assisted by three men in gowns and wigs, who clerk in front of him and keep him right on points of procedure. They are untrained in points of ethics.
Among key ideas lost in the recent days of Telegraph-adulation:
Who are these journalists? How much are they paid? Have they never fiddled their expenses? (Tweedle-Foulkes at least got it right on telly the other day when he asked the twenties bimbo interviewing him how much she gets paid. 50% more than MPs apparently– and that’s without her expenses.
Why don’t others follow the example of Saint Vince Cable? – he has been putting his expenses on his website since 2004.
How many lawyers are there in the Commons – and how many does it take to decide what is legal?
What’s the role of the Fees Office in all this? It seems they have been at the very least conniving at unethical applications of immoral systems. (Not to mention shielding a mole, who may have made a healthy swag selling CDs to the Telegraph pen-pushers.)
Saddest of all in this sorry spectacle, is that government seems to have stopped while this is sorted out. Thus we have 600 good men and true, not to mention lady MPs, who each earn £60,000 plus. And all they are talking about, according to the papers, is how deep their snout has been in the trough, and how much is visible.
That looks like £1 million pounds per week in my reckoning. Haven’t they got better things to do with their expensive time? (like chasing up a few more bankers for garrotting – now that’s really moral!)
Many years ago Saint Vince Cable started reporting his expense claims on his website. At the very least I think we should ask our MPs to do this.
Kelvin Hopkins MP claims under £2000 per year, I understand. Good for the left-wingers!
York's local Tory says he needs two homes. But I like many others have had to spend a lot of time in London for their work. I don't expect to have a second home - certainly not at the unknowing taxpayer's expense.
I do need a reasonable place to stay in London however (usually a hotel - sometimes the YHA or a friend's couch). Generally I can claim this as an expense - but it is an overnight expense, not a second home! Why can't MPs get by with an overnight expense? If they want to spend it on another home that is completely up to them.
The saddest thing is 600 guys and gals each on £60,000 p.a. spending all their energy watching their backs. How many MPs does it take to change a light-bulb?!
Sunday, April 19, 2009
The birth of Israel
Israel is a totemic vision created from a murderous dialectic between utopia and hell - Born out of crisis, A child of Euro-fascism.
Gaza - Church, press and people are now looking the other way. But the blockade goes on.
Had an amazing meeting to finish off York's 100-Day 'Fast for Gaza' last night. Our Guest of Honour was Waqar from Sheffield. He's been all the way to Gaza but had never been to York before!
Waqar gave us a blow-by-blow account of the journey from Sheffield to Gaza - and his own personal journey in what must have been a life-changing experience. (Viva Palestina are sending another convoy on October 3rd. So all you guys who want to get in on a mad mission-with-a-purpose, go to their website NOW; - I say 'mad' only because it is crazy ideas that change the world, and a lurking doubt as to whether this is the best method logistics-wise to get the stuff to Gaza. But what-the-hell - next time I hope there will be a York bus/ambulance/fire-engine/F15 in the convoy.)
Why did this magnificent convoy get so little mention in the British Press - the world Jewish conspiracy? the anti-GG (Geogre Galloway) lobby? No - the bloody complacent, spineless British Press, who can't recognise an exciting story-with-a-purpose when they see one. God, they should make a film out of it! (The only mention I saw was when some of the guys were picked up by the fuzz in Lancashire on terrorism allegations, only to be let free 3 days later by which time they had missed the boat.)
(See Rod Cox's blog for a very different point of view on Ge Ogre Galloway: could this be a case of two magnificent egos rubbing each other up the wrong way?)
Anyhow, Waqar has a video on Youtube - it's here or you can just Google "Waqar Viva convoy". I should warn you - there's some pretty ghastly pictures in it. But also a lot of guys changing their lives and changing the world. It must have been tough, but it must have been fun.
Waqar took us through Sheffield, London, France, Spain, Morocco, Algeria, Tunisa, Libya (where Colonel G donated 100 large trucks full of supplies - now I bet THAT was reported in the Tripoli Telegraph!), and then into Egypt which was the only place where they were seriously harassed. It's in situations like that where the good old British passport can be extremely useful.
I can't summarise Waqar's story; but we taped part of it and I hope to put that up soon here.
The bad news is that in Gaza it's the same old story - unchanged for 61 years, except that it's got worse. And I'm angry that our press, church and people are now looking the other way.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Links relating to 100-day Gaza Fast (York Minster)
American values I just came across this horrifying report about five American soldiers who raped a young girl oin Iraq, and then murdered her and her family to cover up the crime. One of them was later “Honourably discharged” from the US army (Washington Post,Wikipedia: Mahmudiyah_killings).
How can this happen?
How many more such events get covered up?
Is this part of a My Lai syndrome in the US military - a culture of aggression and violence that pervades civil society, and goes back to the extermination of American Indians?
Is the British army any different? (I sincerely hope so.)
"Old Moanies", and proposals for a "Brown pound"
My comment on a recent posting regarding "old moanies", headed "Pensioners believe their lives are getting worse and that they suffer greater discrimination than ever":
I agree we should support our youngsters and look at things from their point of view as well. It is dreadful that there is so little contact between over-60s and under-30s. However, as an over-60 myself I can tell you it is no fun growing old - even if health is maintained (which it is not).
A simple way of dealing with things - rather than issuing big cheques to bankers - would be to give EVERYBODY an extra £1000 to spend. This could be paid automatically, just like the old people's winter fuel payment, and if the same amount was paid to everybody it would be an equalising measure. For some people it could really change their lives.
Further to the above, if we want people to spend their money NOW, why not issue evyerbody with "Brown pounds". These would be timed to expire at the end of next year, or would 'taper' out in some other way. This gives a method which is
reviving for the economy
egalitarian
swift
simple
does not subsidies the bankers!
Tuesday, April 07, 2009
Polar bear in Whitby - with Viking!
Just spent a day in the marvellous seaside town of Whitby - shades of Captain Cook and all that!
Part of the aim was to publicise our marvellous "I L North Yorkshire" t-shirts. Another was to visit the unique "Whitby Wizard" science musuem on the West Cliff in Whitby, just above Captain cook's famous whale-bones.
While there, saw this marvellous graffitiesque Polar Bear - why does graffitto have such a bad name?
Just re-visiting after a long time away: my webmaster has been off & so I'll have to learn how to do it myself.
Latest blog-news:
- Another (few) days older and deeper in debt - four friends-and-family died in the last week - I guess this is something that you have to get used to as you get older. (Two of them were younger than me and two were older.) And now Robin Cook has gone - one of the few big-hitters on Iraq. If anybody could put a bomb under Blair it was him. Clare Short is just not in the same league. (Benn is, but he is getting on and does not have the same credibility and current inside knowedge.) The serious danger now (with Blair crying 'treason' at any muslim who takes a questioning stance) is that the only big-hitters are the Muslim clerics. It could be very divisive: we may have only just seen the beginning of an increase in 'race-crime'.
That's it for now - I'm going to try to download my draft web-links now.
