Scotfella: August 2013

Friday, 30 August 2013

On Salif Keita and ‘heeding’ the call to boycott Israel.

A man persuaded against his will is of the same persuasion still

A few days ago I posted on the case of Salif Keita over on Engage. Briefly, the Malian musician’s cancellation of a trip to Israel was greeted as a victory for BDS – another heart/mind won over – until he and his wife published a letter asserting that they were pulling out due to pressure and intimidation, not because they had been convinced by arguments for a cultural boycott of Israel.

As I noted in my earlier piece, Ali Abunimah’s response was illogical because he refused to acknowledge that some artists may withdraw from concerts in Israel under duress:

Resort to unsupported claims of “threats” and potentially defamatory statements may be a tactic that some artists resort to when they do not wish to violate the Palestinian call to boycott Israel, but do not have the courage to take a political stance.

I assume that responses to appeals from BDS supporters cover the full spectrum. At one end will be active Israel supporters who are completely unswayed – and at the other you will get people who are just as passionately convinced by the arguments for boycott. In the middle you will certainly (I say certainly because I was involved in some behind the scenes discussions in one particular case) get people who may not really agree with BDS but decide that playing in Israel isn’t worth the hassle.

Some of the BDS crowd are complaining that Keita has claimed to have been threatened, but won’t reveal more details. That’s not absolutely unreasonable. This, on the other hand, is:

Finally, the Campagne BDS France suggests “Artists sympathetic to our case and who wish to boycott Israel can do it either by canceling their visit and explaining clearly their step, or by canceling without giving any reason if they prefer not to do so.”
“But they should not stain their courageous and civic act of solidarity with violent and deceitful statements about our philosophy, goals and methods.”

This is crazy. Essentially it’s asserting that Keita did in fact really want to boycott Israel but – for reasons the writer doesn’t make clear – decided to pretend he withdrew due to threats – and, just for good measure, and to reinforce his ‘solidarity’, chose to associate the whole BDS movement with those threats, not just the odd individual.

Keita’s is an extreme case – he’s been absolutely forthright about this issue, and asserts that he loves Israel. But it’s a fair bet that some of the more muted cancellations of Israel concerts are not positively made choices. BDS gets very indignant about allegations of threats, but their official tactics go well beyond friendly personal appeals.

We contact these artists with the goal of convincing them and at the same time winning their hearts and minds. It would therefore be completely contrary to our principles to threaten them in any manner whatsoever, and it would be completely counterproductive for us.

Something need not be ‘threatening’ to be intimidating, or at least coercive.

Take this letter from PACBI addressed to readers in the United Arab Emirates. It is aggressively worded, and aimed at damaging Alicia Keys’ reputation, and thus hitting her financially.

We at the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI) call on our sisters and brothers in the United Arab Emirates to cancel Alicia Keys’ scheduled concert in Dubai on November 15 due to her support for apartheid Israel [1].
Alicia Keys has not only undermined our civil resistance to Israel’s regime of occupation, settler colonialism and apartheid, but she has reportedly visited a support group for the Israeli occupation army based in occupied Jerusalem [2], ignoring the fact that the Israeli army is the key instrument of oppression and war crimes against the Palestinian, Lebanese and other people in the region.

Of course Alicia Keys had already put herself beyond the pale in refusing to heed the boycott call. The word ‘heed’ is often the one used, and it is an interesting choice. It is commonly used in contexts where something bad will happen to the person who fails to ‘heed’ the advice/warning/rules. Any artist who has read that letter to the UAE urging them to cancel Alicia Keys’ concerts might well feel that it would be better just to quietly ‘heed’ the call to boycott after receiving an initial ‘friendly’ communication from a BDS group.

KEYWORDS: Israel.

Tom Jones embroiled in row over Israel boycott

Sir Tom Jones is at the centre of a row between rival campaigners over his plans to play a concert in Israel, amid growing calls for musicians to boycott the Jewish state.

Sir Tom Jones Photo: Getty Images

By Robert Tait, Jerusalem

6:22PM BST 27 Aug 2013

The 73-year-old singer became the latest high-profile act to come under pressure not to perform in Israel after activists in his native Wales used the title of one his most famous songs, "It's Not Unusual", to urge him to cancel the show at Tel Aviv's Nokia Arena on October 27.

The Cardiff Palestine Solidarity Campaign said its petition, "It's Not Unusual To Boycott Apartheid", had attracted more than 1,000 signatures.

It provoked a sharp retort from Israel's consulate in New York, which used the same song as the title of a mass email campaign, "It's Not Unusual To Love Israel". The counter-offensive calls on pro-Israel activists to swamp Sir Tom with encouraging messages on social media to go ahead with the concert.

"Over the past few weeks, Tom Jones has become the latest victim of a fringe campaign pushing for a boycott of Israel, which bullies artists and academics from coming to Israel," wrote Gil Lainer, the mission's consult for public affairs. "It is time to tell Tom Jones that no music fan should be punished because of the agenda of online bullies. We should send positive messages of love and support to Tom Jones on his Facebook and Twitter pages, with the hashtag £IsraelLovesTomJones."

In a letter to Sir Tom – who has performed in Israel several times in the past - the Cardiff Palestine Solidarity Campaign organisers draw parallels between Israel's treatment of Palestinians and racial apartheid in South African – comparing Tel Aviv to the once-notorious Sun City resort.

"People in Wales know you care about human rights and social justice," the letter says. "We ask you to reconsider and to cancel your performance in Israel, especially as you signed a pledge not to play in South Africa during its apartheid era."

The BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) movement, which advocates the international isolation of Israel in protest at its policies towards the Palestinians, has publicly supported calls for the concert to be cancelled.

"We hope Tom Jones will change his mind once he learns how his gig will be used to normalise Israel's on-going atrocities against the Palestinian people," said Omar Barghouti, a BDS founding member and Palestinian human rights activist.

Last week, Roger Waters, the former Pink Floyd frontman and a long-time BDS activist, issued an open letter urging fellow rock stars not to perform in Israel.

Several British stars, including Elvis Costello and Annie Lennox, have said they will no longer play there. Last year, Stevie Wonder, the American singer, cancelled a concert to raise funds for the Israeli Defence Forces after an appeal from Mr Waters.

Other artists have resisted pressure to cancel engagements. Eric Burden, the former lead singer with the Animals, went ahead with a show this month even after his manager said he would cancel because of "threatening emails" from anti-Israel campaigners.

Alicia Keys, the American singer, performed in Tel Aviv in July despite receiving an open letter from Alice Walker, author of "The Colour Purple", asking her not to play.

As talks begin, Palestinians reach out to Israel

The Associated Press

RAMALLAH, West Bank —

The Palestinians have traditionally shown little affection for Israeli politicians. These days, however, they are reaching out to their adversaries in an attempt to jump-start recently renewed peace efforts.

Hoping to persuade skeptical Israeli decision makers that they are serious about peace, leading Palestinian politicians have been holding a series of meetings with their Israeli counterparts. The meetings have taken place in Europe, in Israel's parliament and next week, at the Palestinian government headquarters in the West Bank.

Mohammed al-Madani, who is organizing the effort, said the Palestinians realized they need to take a new approach after watching Israeli governments build Jewish settlements on the lands the Palestinians seek for their future state. The settlements, he said, are destroying hopes for peace.

"Therefore we decided to address the Israeli decision makers and shapers of public opinion to shake things up," he said. "The two-state solution is the only possible, doable choice for both peoples."

Al-Madani heads the Palestinian Outreach Committee to the Israeli Society, a government-backed group that was formed last year after the U.N. General Assembly, over Israeli objections, recognized Palestine as a non-member state. Senior Palestinian officials, including members of President Mahmoud Abbas' inner circle, sit on the committee.

Last year's U.N. vote sent already strained Palestinian relations with Israel tumbling to a new low, with Israel retaliating with additional settlement plans and the Palestinians threatening to use their new upgraded status to pursue sanctions and war crimes charges against Israel.

After months of prodding by the U.S., Israel and the Palestinians last month reopened their first substantive peace negotiations in nearly five years.

While previous rounds of peace talks, particularly in the 1990s, generated widespread hope and optimism, the current round has created little excitement. After so many years of mistrust, failure and bouts of violence, neither side seems to be optimistic that the latest talks, expected to last nine months, will be successful.

The Palestinians seek the West Bank, east Jerusalem and Gaza Strip, territories captured by Israel in 1967, for their state. But as Israel continues to build settlements in the West Bank and east Jerusalem, the Palestinians fear time is running out to divide the land between two states. More than 500,000 Israelis now live in the settlements. Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005.

Israeli peace advocates say the establishment of a Palestinian state is the only way to preserve Israel's character as a democracy with a Jewish majority. The alternative, they say, is a single state in which Arabs, with their higher birthrate, will one day outnumber Jews.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has embraced the idea of a Palestinian state. But he has continued to expand Jewish settlements and refused to commit to the broad territorial concessions the Palestinians seek.

In July, the Palestinians hosted dozens of activists from Netanyahu's hard-line Likud Party, as well as Shas, an ultra-Orthodox party whose leaders frequently take tough positions toward the Palestinians.

"Our constant message to the Israelis is the only solution is the two-state solution, and this solution is in the interests of both peoples, not only the Palestinians," said Nidal Fuqaha, director of the Palestinian Peace Coalition and a member of the committee.

Earlier this month, five centrist Israeli lawmakers met in Budapest with a Palestinian delegation that included top members of President Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah movement and a member of his negotiating team.

"We didn't negotiate of course. We talked and got to meet each other," said Boaz Toporovsky, a member of the centrist Yesh Atid who participated in the two-day gathering. Yesh Atid is a partner in Netanyahu's coalition.

Israelis talked about their experiences coping with suicide bombs and wars, while Palestinians talked about the hardships of living under Israeli occupation.

"We established a good connection," he said. "We understood the hard life the Palestinians are having. They understood the difficulties we are having. When you meet the other side, this is important." He said that the newfound trust could be important if any peace agreement goes to a vote in parliament.

In another recent meeting, a group of Palestinian officials traveled to Israel's Knesset, or parliament, as guests of the newly formed "Caucus for Ending the Israeli-Arab Conflict." For the first time in years, a Palestinian flag was displayed in the parliament building.

Ashraf Ajrami, a former Cabinet minister who was among the Palestinian participants, said he was surprised by how far Israelis and Palestinians have drifted from one another.

In the early days of peace efforts 20 years ago, there was frequent interaction between the sides. But there has been little contact since the outbreak of a Palestinian uprising in 2000. Although the violence has subsided, mistrust lingers.

"The long disconnect between us and the Palestinians has created huge gaps. There are too many Knesset members who don't understand our real position," Ajrami said. "By these discussions and meetings, we have made a breakthrough with the right-wing and religious camp."

Next Tuesday, the Palestinians plan on holding their most ambitious event yet. Abbas is to host roughly 12 Israeli lawmakers at his West Bank offices in Ramallah. The gathering is a response to the recent meeting at the Israeli parliament.

"It shows (Abbas) has a real will to talk and sees in himself a partner and therefore we immediately accepted the invitation," said Hilik Bar, a member of the dovish Labor party who leads the new parliamentary caucus.

Though the agenda of the meeting was not known, he said it would give a "backwind" to the negotiations. "It strengthens trust, discussion and dialogue between the sides," he said.

___

Josef Federman and Tia Goldenberg in Jerusalem contributed to this report.

Israel completes mass immigration of Ethiopian Jews

Picture: THINKSTOCK

TEL AVIV - Israel this week completed the organised mass immigration of Ethiopian Jews, 65 years after the Jewish state was founded.

Two chartered flights with about 450 immigrants on board landed in Tel Aviv, the last of Operation Dove’s Wings, which brought to Israel thousands of Ethiopian Jews who were forced to convert to Christianity.

Senior officials and scores of journalists awaited the chartered flights at Ben Gurion International Airport as the new immigrants arrived to an emotional welcome ceremony.

Jewish Agency head Nathan Sharansky, who accompanied the immigrants on their fight, spoke of a "moving, historic moment".

According to the Jewish Agency, which is responsible for the immigration and integration of Jewish immigrants in Israel, 92,000 Ethiopian Jews have arrived in Israel since 1948 when Israel was established.

Known as Beta Israel, they lived independently as Jews in northern and northwestern Ethiopia since the days of the Bible and were discovered only in the 19th century by other Jewish communities in Europe and elsewhere.

Many of them were airlifted to Israel in large-scale campaigns, including Operation Mozes, in 1984 and 1985 when about 8,000 were brought to Israel, and Operation Solomon in 1991 when more than 14,000 arrived in a 34-hour period.

Operation Dove’s Wings — a mission to bring the Falash Mura, the Ethiopian Jews forced to convert to Christianity, to Israel — began three years ago after an Israeli government decision. In all, the Jewish Agency chartered 91 fights, bringing 7,000 Ethiopians to Israel as part of the operation.

The status of the Falash Mura had been under debate for decades in Israel. A Jewish Agency spokeswoman said some of the immigrants were immediately eligible for Israeli citizenship under the Law of Return, which states that any Jew from the diaspora is entitled to live in the Jewish state.

But others would have to convert to Judaism first, she said.

"The state of Israel completed the immigration process of the oldest Jewish community amongst the Jewish people," Mr Sharansky said at the airport ceremony.

Absorption Minister Sofa Landver said: "You prayed and longed for Zion and Jerusalem, and here, today, on this afternoon, on this day, a vision becomes reality. This morning, you woke up there, in Ethiopia. Tonight, you will go to sleep at home, in Israel."

Sapa-DPA

Instructrices de tirs

Caporal Daniella Stepanoe, instructrice de tir dans l’armée israélienne

Spécialisées dans les techniques de tir, les instructrices de Tsahal enseignent aux combattants les plus exposés au danger comment manier leurs armes. Ces femmes, expertes en balistique, portent la lourde responsabilité de l’enseignement et de la formation des combattants de Tsahal et de la sécurité du pays.

Le Caporal Daniella Stepanoe est née en Israël. Elle a passé son enfance en Californie, pour revenir en Israël à l’âge de 18 ans afin de servir dans Tsahal et est aujourd’hui instructrice de tir. Elle sillonne le pays de base en base et forme tous les soldats aussi bien les parachutistes que les soldats des commandos d’élite à manier leurs armes et à faire preuve de précision et de professionnalisme au cours de leurs missions.

Commandantes d’un peloton de tireurs d’élite

« On m’a fait savoir récemment que je deviendrai commandante d’un peloton de tireurs d’élite, composé d’hommes et de femmes. C’est un défi, et je suis heureuse d’être la première à tenter de le relever », affirmait le Lieutenant Noy il y a un an, après avoir terminé avec succès la formation de tireur d’élite de Tsahal.

« Les gars étaient un peu surpris de me voir arriver au sommet et tirer, mais ils m’ont tous soutenue »

Les meilleurs combattants suivent une formation de tireur d’élite, avant de revenir au sein de leur bataillon. Des femmes combattantes, notamment celles du bataillon Karakal situé à la frontière égyptienne, suivent également cette formation qui prépare les élèves officiers à tirer avec précision dans des conditions compliquées. Une fois revenue, elles occupent une place de leader au sein du bataillon et commandent leurs camarades, filles et garçons.

Le Sous-lieutenant Noy en action

Instructrices de Krav Maga

Dans l’armée israélienne, une grande partie des instructeurs de Krav Maga sont des femmes. Elles sont chargées d’enseigner les principes fondamentaux d’auto-défense, pour que chaque soldat soit en mesure de se défendre, même désarmé ou seul.

Chaque soldat israélien, indépendamment de sa fonction dans l’armée, doit suivre une formation afin d’apprendre les techniques de base d’auto-défense. Le Krav Maga a été développé par l’armée israélienne pour répondre aux besoins spécifiques de ses soldats, notamment pour qu’ils puissent faire face aux tentatives d’enlèvements des terroristes.

Instructrices de blindés

Certaines soldates ont pour rôle de former les combattants à conduire et à se servir d’un tank. Elles connaissent sur le bout des doigts le fonctionnement des hummers, duMerkava ou du Léopard : outils indispensables aux combattants sur le terrain. Même une fois déployées auprès des combattants, elles effectuent régulièrement des exercices et des tests pour se maintenir au niveau .

Instructrices en exercice

Combattantes du Dôme de fer

Les combattantes du Dôme de fer, au même titre que les garçons, ont pour mission de faire fonctionner les batteries de Dôme de fer pour intercepter les missiles ennemis. Et parmi les soldats qui ont protégé plus de 3.5 millions d’Israéliens pendant Pilier de Défense en neutralisant 421 roquettes au-dessus du sud et de Tel Aviv, on retrouve également des filles, comme Lolly, originaire de France.

Lolly née en France et actuellement combattante du Dôme de fer

…elles défendent, au même titre que les hommes, les frontières d’Israël.

Sur le même sujet…

Les femmes de Tsahal, cliquez ici.
Les soldates ‘Made in Israel’, cliquez ici.

Parliament has sent a clear message to Assad: he can go on killing without fear of British reaction

We live in small-minded, mean-spirited times. More than two years into the Syrian civil war, with 100,000 dead and Iran, Russia and Hezbollah openly supporting Assad’s murderous campaign, Britain’s parliament has narrowly voted to reject Cameron’s watered-down parliamentary motion for intervention.

Bashar al Assad This motion would not have authorized military action; merely noted that a ‘strong humanitarian response is required from the international community and that this may, if necessary, require military action that is legal, proportionate and focused on saving lives by preventing and deterring further use of Syria’s chemical weapons.’

Cameron would still have needed a second parliamentary vote before he could have authorised the use of force.

Parliament’s rejection of even this feeble step sends a clear message to Assad that he can go on killing without fear of British reaction.

The strength of isolationist, Little Englander feeling in Britain has been demonstrated. Cameron was defeated by the same uncontrollable ‘swivel-eyed loons’ of the Tory backbenches and grassroots who tried to sabotage gay marriage and want to drag Britain out the EU. It was perhaps too much to expect a parliament that is so savagely assaulting the livelihoods of poorer and more vulnerable Britons to care much about foreigners, particularly Muslim foreigners.

Following the Woolwich murder, many opponents of intervention in Syria seemed to think the Free Syrian Army was equivalent to Lee Rigby’s jihadist killers. Now, however, anti-interventionists are focusing less on essentialising Muslims and more on the supposed precedent of Iraq. Iraq is the new Vietnam – the tired exemplar of a wrong-headed war wheeled out every time by the anti-interventionists. They ignore the relatively successful campaigns of the past three decades – Kuwait, Kosovo, Sierra Leone, Libya – focusing instead on the one where we were apparently tricked into going to war with bogus claims about ‘Weapons of Mass Destruction’.

The phoney parallel between Syria and Iraq was strengthened by Obama’s and Cameron’s unfortunate focus on Assad’s chemical-weapons use as the ‘red line’ whose crossing would trigger intervention, recalling Iraq’s alleged WMD.

Yet it is unclear why Assad’s chemical-weapons massacre was different from his prior massacres with conventional arms. After all, Rwanda’s Hutu extremists murdered many more people much more quickly using machetes. Cameron has paid for the weak US president’s choice of a ‘red line’ that he thought he could safely draw to avoid intervening without appearing a total surrender-monkey. If Obama has to fight without Britain, it will be his own fault.

Intervention is opposed by the usual suspects from the fringes. The BNP’s Nick Griffin is apparently visiting Syria; a BNP spokesman says ‘Once again Nick Griffin is putting his life on the line to stop the Cameron regime from committing war crimes in the name of the British people.’

According to George Galloway, ‘If there has been a use of chemical weapons it was al-Qaeda that used the chemical weapons – who gave al-Qaeda the chemical weapons? Here’s my theory, Israel gave them the chemical weapons.’

In the Daily Express, Ukip’s Nigel Farage begins with a reference to Iraq and WMD before stating ‘Ukip has been consistent in its opposition to military intervention in foreign wars over the last decade and this latest debate on Syria is no different.’

And Labour’s Diane Abbott says: ‘I voted against the Iraq War. At the moment, I can’t see anything that would make me vote for intervention in Syria.’

Yet the distinction between the fringes and the mainstream is blurring. In the Daily Telegraph, Peter Oborne writes of a ‘haunting’ parallel with Iraq, before claiming that ‘the Stop the War Coalition… has consistently shown far more mature judgment on these great issues of war and peace than Downing Street, the White House or the CIA.’ This praise from one of the more intelligent Conservative columnists for the bone-headed dinosaurs of the anti-democratic left is a sign of the times.

Yet Syria is not Iraq. Bush wanted not merely to attack but to occupy Iraq and overthrow its regime, despite bitter opposition from many of the US’s allies. The contrast with Obama’s foot-dragging over Syria could not be greater. A US occupation of Syria is not in the cards; merely limited strikes against selected targets. International support for action is not exactly overwhelming, but there is nothing like the opposition that Bush faced. Muslims themselves are divided over the question.

Should it occur, US intervention in Syria is, at most, likely to follow the pattern of Kosovo and Libya. In neither conflict was a single Western soldier killed in combat, and both ended more successfully than the sceptics predicted.

As the architect of Cameron’s parliamentary defeat, Miliband must know that Syria is not Iraq. He has again shown himself to be a narrowly calculating career politician rather than a statesman concerned with the national interest. He has distanced Labour from the legacy of Iraq by sabotaging a completely different intervention, thereby simultaneously appeasing his own left-wing and appealing to the conservative Little Englander constituency.

But it will make him responsible for the resulting damage to the special relationship with the US and to Britain’s global credibility, as well as for Assad’s ongoing extermination of Syria’s people, should Washington now follow Britain and pull back. Tory eurosceptics may want Britain to become an inward-looking geopolitical irrelevance like Norway or Switzerland, but we are still a permanent UN Security Council member and nuclear power, signed up to R2P.

Future historians studying Britain’s decline and retreat from global responsibility and relevance may view Miliband as a pivotal figure.

This entry was posted in Multilateral Foreign Policy and taggedBashar al-Assad, Syria. Bookmark the permalink. Post a commentor leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

Perfidious Albion hands murderous Assad a spectacular victory

Barack Obama, right, welcomes British Prime Minister David Cameron in the Oval Office in May. (photo credit: AP/J. Scott Applewhite)

It was a perfect storm of political ineptitude, short-sighted expediency, and gutlessness, with just a modicum of genuine, albeit misplaced, principle.

It involved an unimpressive Labor opposition leader, Ed Miliband, who has failed to connect to the British electorate and is unloved by his own party, and who saw an opportunity for political gain. He seized a chance to distance himself from his reviled predecessor Tony Blair, and no doubt harbored some genuine reservations about an over-hasty resort to force.

It starred an arrogant and earnest prime minister, David Cameron, whose gut told him that the international community simply could not allow President Bashar Assad to get away with gassing his people, but who dismally underestimated the disinclination of the British public, and their parliament, to rush headlong into unpredictable military conflict. Rather than waiting, with just a little patience, for UN inspectors to report back from the scene of the alleged Assad crime, for the UN Security Council to inevitably fail to agree on concerted action, and for the British people and public to internalize that there would be no response to Assad if Russia’s assent were needed, and thus to prepare the ground for a reluctant but morally crucial punitive action against the use of chemical weapons, Cameron tried to steamroll parliament into rubber-stamping a yes to whatever Washington might be planning.

Feeling that it had been similarly steamrolled by Blair into what it regards as the disastrous and immoral Iraq war, on the basis of what proved to be false information about Saddam Hussein’s purported weapons of mass destruction, the British Parliament on Thursday night simply said “no.” Or rather, it thought it said “not for now,” but the impetuous Cameron, like a spoiled child denied approval, bizarrely then immediately stood up and misrepresented the vote as a firm no to any UK role in intervention in Syria — handing his opponents an even bigger victory than the one they thought they had achieved.

Blair himself was a supporting player in the dreadful affair, having declared that international intervention in Syria was called for. He has still failed to internalize, six years after his ouster from 10 Downing Street, that he is so disliked and mistrusted in the UK that any cause he supports — unfortunately including Israel’s — tends to suffer, not benefit, from his endorsement.

As a consequence of Cameron’s absolutely staggering defeat in the House of Commons on Thursday night, an already hesitant US administration — which has been wobbling for days about how to make plain to Assad that he can’t massacre his people with weapons of mass destruction, but to do so without embroiling the US in another muddy, bloody, unwinnable Middle East conflict — has lost its key ally in the unenviable, vital task of reining in the murderous tendencies of global, and especially Middle Eastern, despots.

In Syria, Assad must be delightedly flabbergasted, even as he braces for still-likely American intervention, having witnessed in Westminster how spectacularly wary the once mighty Britain has become of utilizing force to uphold even the highest moral imperatives. The nuances of quite how and why the vote played out the way it did may be lost on him, and why wouldn’t they be? Why would he care that Britain opted out of the challenge of opposing him because of a curious combination of political expediency, prime ministerial foolishness, recent Middle East traumas, and more? The bottom line is that the UK, asked by its leader to stand up and fight against the use of WMD to kill innocent civilians in distant Syria, walked away.

In Iran, for a regime which has always had a withering estimation of western moral purpose, the anti-Cameron opposition’s dramatic victory would have come as less of a surprise, and it can only reinforce Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s confidence that he, like North Korea before him, can safely lie and dissemble his way to a nuclear weapons capability, ignoring the empty rhetoric of the craven West.

And in Israel? In an Israel beset by threats and challenges in almost every direction, an Israel whose northern border is just an hour’s drive from Assad’s toxic Damascus, an Israel being urged by the international community to take territorial risks for peace in a vicious, WMD-using, phenomenally unstable Middle East — in that Israel, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will be feeling a further bitter vindication of his long-held and oft-stated conviction that, ultimately, against all dangers, Israel needs to be able to take care of itself, by itself. At the very least, he might be reflecting, perfidious Albion could not be relied upon to rally to the rescue.

Scotfella

Search This Blog

Friday, 30 August 2013

On Salif Keita and ‘heeding’ the call to boycott Israel.

Tom Jones embroiled in row over Israel boycott

Sir Tom Jones is at the centre of a row between rival campaigners over his plans to play a concert in Israel, amid growing calls for musicians to boycott the Jewish state.

As talks begin, Palestinians reach out to Israel

Israel completes mass immigration of Ethiopian Jews

MORE IN THIS SECTION

TOP STORIES

POST A COMMENT

5 rôles dans lesquels vous n’auriez pas imaginé voir des femmes

Qu’elles soient …

Instructrices de tirs

Commandantes d’un peloton de tireurs d’élite

Instructrices de Krav Maga

Instructrices de blindés

Combattantes du Dôme de fer

…elles défendent, au même titre que les hommes, les frontières d’Israël.

Parliament has sent a clear message to Assad: he can go on killing without fear of British reaction

Perfidious Albion hands murderous Assad a spectacular victory

Popular Posts

Search This Blog

Friday, 30 August 2013

Sir Tom Jones is at the centre of a row between rival campaigners over his plans to play a concert in Israel, amid growing calls for musicians to boycott the Jewish state.

Related Articles

Related articles

MORE IN THIS SECTION

TOP STORIES

Qu’elles soient …

Instructrices de tirs

Commandantes d’un peloton de tireurs d’élite

Instructrices de Krav Maga

Instructrices de blindés

Combattantes du Dôme de fer

…elles défendent, au même titre que les hommes, les frontières d’Israël.

Popular Posts