Search This Blog

Saturday, 30 October 2010

UNESCO pushes a lie

Executive Board adopts five decisions concerning UNESCO’s work in the occupied Palestinian and Arab Territories

The 185th session of UNESCO’s Executive Board today adopted five decisions concerning UNESCO’s work in the occupied Palestinian and Arab Territories.

The decisions cover:

•    The Ascent to the Mughrabi Gate in the Old City of Jerusalem: the Board voted 31 to 5 (17 abstentions) to reaffirm the necessity of Israel’s cooperation in order to arrange access to the Mughrabi Ascent site for Jordanian and Waqf experts and that no measures should be taken which will affect the authenticity and integrity of the site, in accordance with the Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage and the Hague Convention for the protection of Cultural property in the Event of Armed Conflict.

•    Jerusalem’s cultural heritage:  The Board voted 34 to 1 (19 abstentions) to “reaffirm the religious significance of the Old City of Jerusalem for Muslims, Christians and Jews. The decision expresses “deep concern over the ongoing Israeli excavations and archaeological works on Al-Aqsa Mosque compound in the Old City of Jerusalem, which contradicts UNESCO decisions and conventions and United Nations and Security Council resolutions”. It invites the Director-General to appoint experts to be stationed in East Jerusalem to report on all aspects covering the architectural, educational, cultural and demographical situation there. It also invites the Israelis to facilitate the work of the experts in conformity with Israel’s adherence to UNESCO decisions and conventions.

•    The Palestinian sites of al-Haram  al-Ibrahimi/Tomb of the Patriarchs in al-Khalil/Hebron and the Bilal bin Rabah Mosque/Rachel’s Tomb in Bethlehem: the Board voted 44 to one (12 abstentions) to reaffirm that the two sites are an integral part of the occupied Palestinian Territories and that any unilateral action by the Israeli authorities is to be considered a violation of international law, the UNESCO Conventions and the United Nations and Security Council resolutions.

•    Educational and cultural institutions in the Occupied Arab territories: The board voted 41 to one (15 abstentions) expressing its “continuing concern” about the harmful impact of the separation Wall and other practices on the activities of cultural and educational institutions, as well as obstacles that result which prevent Palestinian school children and students from being an integral part  of their social fabric and from exercising their full right to education.  The decision calls on the Director-General to continue efforts to preserve the human, social and cultural fabric of the occupied Syrian Golan, and to undertake efforts to offer appropriate curricula and provide more grants and adequate assistance to the education and cultural institutions of the occupied Syrian Golan.

•    The reconstruction and development of Gaza: The Board voted 41 to one (15 abstentions) on a decision that “deplores” the continuous blockade on the Gaza Strip, which harmfully affects the free and sustained movement of personnel and humanitarian relief items”. The decision called upon the Director-General of UNESCO to continue contributing to the United Nations humanitarian response in Gaza within the Organization’s fields of competence.

UNESCO’s Executive Board comprises 58 Member States. It meets twice a year to review the implementation of the programme adopted by the General Conference. The 185th session of the Board opened on 5 October and closes today, 21 October.

Anti-semitic, and new low for Scottish Palestine Solidarity Campaign

A new low for Scottish Palestine Solidarity Campaign

Mark Gardner at the CST.
There was a time, not so long ago, when Holocaust denial was considered too toxic for secular leftist anti-Israel activists to touch. Not any more, because the Scottish Palestine Solidarity Campaign (SPSC) is now using the winning entry from Iran’s notorious Holocaust cartoon competition of 2006. (See here, on SPSC website, inserted by SPSC to accompany a press release by the Israeli group, Gush Shalom. The story appears here in the Jewish Telegraph, including condemnations by local politicians.)
This is not to accuse the Scottish Palestine Solidarity Campaign of indulging in Holocaust denial. Far from it. Rather, they have repeatedly utilised Holocaust imagery and abused Holocaust memory to launch the most repugnant attacks upon Israel and its supporters. (The logic is simple and seductive, as subverting the Holocaust undermines the most resonant moral and historical pillar for Israel’s existence.)
Overall, the leftist anti-Israel slide into Nazi-themed filth has been gradual but persistent. (For detail, see this article, “Holocaust Denial as an Anti-Zionist and Anti-Imperialist Tool for the European Far Left” by CST’s Dave Rich.)
It began with absurdly overblown accusations of Zionist complicity with the Nazi Holocaust, epitomised by the play “Perdition”.
It regressed into accusing Israel of being the new Nazi Germany, as seen throughout last year’s Gaza war demonstrations.
It debased Holocaust Memorial Day, using it for anti-Israel campaigning.
Now, it is now lifting cartoons from the world’s foremost pushers of Holocaust denial and antisemitism.
Every stage of this moral collapse has been led by some individual activist or group. Opposing voices have occasionally been heard from within the anti-Israel camp, but largely there was silence, followed by creeping support: until each stage of the narrative reached its tipping point and became embedded as part of accepted anti-Israel wisdom. Nowhere was this more apparent than in the widespread tolerance and subsequent promotion of the Israel equals Nazi Germany libel.
As shown in CST’s Antisemitic Discourse Report (lengthy pdf download here), Nazi-themed anti-Israel propaganda is a grotesque abuse of Jewish history and memory that causes direct and significant hurt to Jews; trivialises and essentially denies the enormity of the Holocaust; and attempts to displace Jews as victims of the Holocaust and supersede them with Palestinians.
The anti-Israel left must know the pain that all of this Nazi-themed filth causes to the overwhelming majority of Jews: but history would strongly suggest that Jews should not expect any comfort or sentimentality from this supposedly anti-racist element of our society.
This was the winning cartoon, used by SPSC. It shows the railway tracks at Auschwitz-Birkenau.
9699749032
These cartoons were from the same competition as the one used by SPSC, and were amongst those winning “special awards”. The first implicitly denies the Holocaust. The second is a riot of antisemitic caricature and racism, with Holocaust denial thrown in for ugly measure.
Google Image Result for http--www irancartoon com-120-holocaust-009Naji-Benaji-(4) jpg
010mahmoud-nazari

Book essay: Understanding the Arab Lobby

The Arab Lobby by Michell Bard is a detailed account of the organisations, fronts and persons that make up an Arab lobby in the United States of America. While the Israel lobby (primarily AIPAC) is well known and often mentioned, at times even inspiration forconspiracy theories, the Arab lobby is less well defined, has very limited public support, yet has significant influence on US policies and the educational system. ”The Arab Lobby” is an ambitious effort to set the record straight.
Bard goes through the complex and at times dizzying array of persons and organisations in fifteen chapters, covering various aspects of the Arab lobby, its structure, backers and influence. The chapters overlap in time, but in aggregate progresses through time from the 1930's to the present. One tricky aspect of the Arab lobby is that the actual lineup of organisations change rapidly over time, making it hard to follow and establish track records of what the Arab organisations were standing for 10, 20 or 40 years ago. This spills over into Bards' book, for it is not easy to make a structured and readable account of such a hall of mirrors, and downright daunting for Europeans. The index and footnotes help, but a mini-encyclopedia of the organisations would be a useful addition.
The Arab lobby (the actual lobby, not the book) comes across as initially quite amateurish, yet well-funded and eventually successful anyway, not least in introducing doubt and uncertainty into US policies. The extent of blatant anti-semitism in the lobby (and its main sponsor Saudi Arabia) is shocking, as today any such attitudes would to civilized people seem beyond sense and reason, yet it is still widespread in the Arab world.
For example, the Saudi king would eagerly hand out copies of ”The Protocols of the Elders of Zion” to every guest he received. Worse, his guests, supporters and many US politicians didn't seem to mind, even though anti-semitism should have been dead and buried in Berlin, May 1945. But business is business, and given the oil money involved it becomes hard to put ethical questions above those of money and purchased loyalty.
Purchasing loyalty is a key ingredient here. The Arab lobby has plenty of oil money in its coffers, and knows how to use it. Anyone with sufficient funds can purchase the aid of PR agencies and advertising space on television, which the Arabs have done extensively, helping to avert criticism and instead presenting an image of exotic and exiting countries with friendly citizens. The human rights situation, in particular religious freedom and the plight of women, are the obvious issues to gloss over. However, the solidifying US public support of Israel, not the Arabs, indicates that the millions spent here have had only limited success.
More devastating is the influence on US academia, and the deliberately confusing effect that the lobby has had in US universities. As Martin S. Kramer has pointed out in his book Ivory Towers on Sand, the Arab influence on US universities, in particular in the wake of Edward W. Said and his book Orientalism (See also Ibn Warraq: Defending the West) has been profound, and not to the benefit of academic excellence or human rights. Foreign agents are to register with the US authorities, but foreign sponsorship of academic institutions is not subject to any particular restrictions. On page 309, Michell Bard has a very important list of Arab donations to US universities, donations that quite clearly seek to purchase goodwill in the most respected of ivory league institutions.
The influence in government is a simple consequence. Another tool to influence government staff is generosity towards those helpful to the Arabs. After they leave office, of course, for taking money while in office would be clearly illegal. Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton are but two of the most prominent beneficiaries of this friendly generosity.
One common ground of the quite diverse Arab lobby is that of Palestine. Or rather, it purpotes to be, for if one examines what the organisations and their spokesmen actually say, the views expressed are much more frequently anti-Israeli than pro-Palestine, and practical support for constructing the mythical Palestinian State is very limited.
While uniting against a common enemy is much easier than uniting for a common cause, the analysts of the White House should be able to see through the thinly veiled anti-semitism underlying this, call their bluff, and request the Arab states to make concrete advances in human rights. For in the few cases that the US government has done so – for instance calling upon Saudi Arabia to abandon slavery – it has been qute effective. But at present the US is hardly in a position to press an agenda of freedom, human rights and democracy.
The root cause of this mess of intrigue and lack of clarity, of course, is the need for stable oil supplies. This creates a mutual dependency not easily resolved. For while the US on the surface has a need to not offend the Arabs, the other side of the coin is that the Arab leaders depend heavily on their petrodollars, to keep themselves in power, fund a lavish lifestyle, to keep their citizens fed and to import foreign expertise.
Trade has always been a promoter of mutual understanding, and even if this understanding is to be between the flagship of democracy and the most repressive, autocratic regime of the world, it still works. This, however, renders the US promotion of 'democracy' impotent, as any such promotion that would challenge the Saudi regime is not likely to happen.
One may wonder why the US didn't simply cut the root of this mess early on, by cutting the dependency on oil before it became a problem of strategic magnitude. The root of this lies in a decision in 1967, where the Johnson administration was having an internal debate over this. The alternatives were simple: Either use the US technological muscle to create alternative energy sources – most notably nuclear – that would ensure independence from foreign suppliers of oil. Or play the game of the Arabs, tone down relations to Israel, and build a friendly relationship to the Arab autocrats. Since grand efforts were already takin in the lunar landing project, the War on Poverty and the war in Vietnem, yet another grand effort for the nation could have been a hard sell. However, choosing the easy way out proved short-sighted, with consequences we're still dealing with even today.
Summing up, this is a most important book, and should be read by anyone interested in understanding the background for the US Middle East policies, and why it keeps failing. The book is comprehensive, but could do with some more structure, and not least more tables and illusrations. They would provide useful anchors in this veritable sea of information, reference points one can easily return to.
That said, the material presented here, including the historical overview it provides, is indispensable reading for those wanting to understand the Middle East conflict, and why we keep failing to 'create peace' there. Falling for the Arab games and their subtle anti-semitism is not going to benefit anyone in the long run. Bard's book is a valuable contribution to identifying those games as we meet them, and to react more appropriately. While daunting, it is sincerely recommended.

Recognition of the Jewish State - a Vital Step for Peace

Recognition of the Jewish State - a Vital Step for Peace
 
Recognition of Israel as a Jewish state will likely revive Israel’s moribund peace camp, and it will demolish perhaps the central argument of Israel’s nationalist camp, says Chaim Landau.
 
Middle East Online
The re-started direct talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority have already hit a dead end. The Netanyahu government has not agreed to extend the settlement freeze, leading to a Palestinian walkout from the negotiations.
Both the Israeli and the Palestinian publics are sceptical about the chances for peace. One of the contentious issues in the negotiations has been Israel’s insistence on its recognition as a Jewish state. While oftentimes dismissed as an unreasonable demand put in place in order to derail the talks, a fresh look may prove that this is a just request with strong potential to jumpstart the negotiations.
Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas has consistently stated that he is not prepared to recognise Israel as a Jewish State. One reason often given for this refusal is that Israel’s character is a matter for its citizens to decide, and there is no reason for the Palestinians to involve themselves in this. A second reason was voiced by Egyptian Foreign Minister Aboul Gheit. Expressing concern over the fate of Arab Israelis in a Jewish state he asked “Will they receive all the civil rights? Will they remain a minority or will they be expelled?”
The crux of the Arab-Israeli conflict revolves around competing claims of Jews and Palestinians to the same territory that both peoples regard as their ancestral homeland. The Jewish people always maintained a strong connection to the land of Israel during their lengthy exile, mentioning it in their prayers three times daily. Jewish history, religion, culture and tradition are intricately tied to the land of Israel. The Palestinian people, within their narrative, have similarly strong ties to the same land they regard as their own, as expressed by Palestinian poet Mahmoud Darwish: “I am the lover and the land is the beloved.”
To resolve this intractable conflict, the international community, in the form of the Quartet (the EU, United States, Russia and the UN) and the Arab League, support the solution of two States for two people. This solution has been embraced alike by the Israeli and Palestinian publics, and commands the support of Abbas and Netanyahu. The international community, for its part, must be clear in its message that the conflict can no longer continue as a zero sum game; both peoples are deserving of a state to call their own, where they may exercise national self determination and where the claims of neither group abrogates the rights of the other.
Israel’s declaration of independence identifies Israel as the Jewish state, the national homeland of the Jewish people, while calling for equal rights for all of its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex. Thus on May 14, 1948 Jewish self-determination was revived after more than 2,000 years with the founding of the Jewish state – Israel. A Jewish state contains a Jewish majority, and defines itself as the collective expression of self-determination for the Jewish people, with the right of any Jew worldwide to obtain residency and citizenship. It does not imply that it need be governed by strict Jewish law (or Halacha) though it may certainly be inspired by Jewish tradition, history, customs and symbols. Within Jewish tradition is the strong obligation to ‘love the stranger’ and to treat the [non Jewish] residents as equal citizens (Leviticus 19:33), including Arab Israelis and other minorities. Similarly, a Palestinian state as well should be seen as the collective expression of the Palestinian people; it will contain a majority of people who identify themselves as Palestinians and will reflect Palestinian history, culture and tradition.
Although the Palestinian people will realise their collective national determination in Palestine, and the Jewish people in Israel, not all Palestinians may choose to live in Palestine, and not all Jews may choose to live in Israel. The majority of the Jewish people do not live in Israel, and they are entitled to full and equal civil rights in the countries they reside in, even as many maintain a strong connection to Israel and may regard Israel as the Jewish homeland. Similarly, Palestinian self-determination will be realised in the new Palestinian state, but that does not preclude the right of Palestinians to full civil and equal rights outside of Palestine, whether they live in Israel or any other country.
Recognition of Israel as a Jewish state will likely revive Israel’s moribund peace camp, and it will demolish perhaps the central argument of Israel’s nationalist camp – that the Palestinian and Arab world will never recognise the right of the Jewish people to self-determination in [parts of] the land of Israel. Recognition of Israel as a state may seem sufficient at first, but it does not address the central issue of the refusal to recognise Jewish sovereignty within the 67 borders.
The principled refusal to do so thus far only increases the fear of Israel’s Jewish majority that the struggle against Jewish sovereignty will continue by other means even after a peace deal may be reached with the Palestinian leadership.
Palestinian recognition of the Jewish state will alter the Israeli political landscape in no less of a way than Sadat’s amazing and unexpected visit to Israel in 1977, which showed that peace with the Arab world was possible. A promising equilibrium will have been created whereby each side recognises the essential collective rights of the other. It will take the negotiations out of the realm of the existential and into the more mundane realms of borders, security arrangements, refugee compensation (from both sides) and access to holy sites.
President Obama, in his address before the United Nations this September, stated that, “true security for the Jewish state requires an independent Palestine – one that allows the Palestinian people to live with dignity and opportunity.” In that spirit, supporters of the peace process have legitimately called upon the Israeli government to extend the settlement freeze, in order to renew the negotiations and allow for a viable Palestinian state. Such supporters however should also call upon the Palestinian leadership to recognise the Jewish state, so as to ensure that all outstanding issues between the two peoples are resolved and that the collective rights of both peoples are honoured.
***
Chaim Landau is the director of Perspectives Israel, which educates about the complexity of the challenges facing Israel from multiple viewpoints within the Jewish-Israeli spectrum. He also works at Shatil, Israel’s premier social change organisation. He has a master’s in International Relations from the London School of Economics and has previously worked as a Legacy Heritage Fellow. This article was written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews).

Lauren Booth's mother is Jewish!!!!!

'I would do anything for Cherie. Lauren? I don't even love her': Tony Booth reveals the diverse emotions he feels for two of his daughters 

By JENNY JOHNSTON
30th October 2010

One of his daughters was this week revealed to be an eBay addict. The other announced her conversion to Islam. So what does their father have to say about them...

The actor Tony Booth had a stroke a few weeks ago, so his children had to be informed. Given that he has eight daughters from a giddying array of relationships, it’s a wonder his current wife Steph managed to get hold of everyone.
But as he lay in hospital — ‘driving the nurses mad’ — it seems that she did. 
First to get the call was his eldest daughter, Cherie Blair, who calls Steph her ‘wicked stepmother’, albeit with tongue firmly in cheek. Cherie was distraught and offered to visit immediately.
Lauren Booth's recent conversion to Islam has been criticised by her father as a 'mischief-making career move'
Lauren Booth's recent conversion to Islam has been criticised by her father as a 'mischief-making career move'
Somewhere way down the list was Cherie’s half-sister Lauren Booth, who was told via email. She passed on her best wishes and asked to be kept informed.
Presumably, she at least called to speak to her father directly once he was out of hospital and recuperating?
‘Absolutely not,’ says Tony, most famous for his role in the BBC’s Till Death Us Do Part. 
‘And I wouldn’t have expected her to either. I don’t know if we’ll ever speak again. I suspect not.’
Both of these daughters — the one Tony says he would ‘go to the ends of the earth for’ and the one he professes never to want to see again — have been in the news this week due to varying degrees of, erm, eccentricity. 
Cherie, high-flying barrister and wife of the former prime minister, was revealed as an eBay addict, buying Disney videos at bargain prices and flogging her husband’s signature for a tenner, despite the fact that the pair of them are worth a reported £60 million.
Daddy's girl: Tony Booth is thrilled with Cherie's success and will always defend her
Daddy's girl: Tony Booth is thrilled with Cherie's success and will always defend her
That was then...: Lauren, pictured here on the right with her father and sister Emma, claims her childhood was characterised by violence and neglect
That was then...: Lauren, pictured here on the right with her father and sister Emma, claims her childhood was characterised by violence and neglect
Lauren, meanwhile, was pictured in a hijab, telling the world how her curious life journey — which has included stints on I’m A Celebrity . . . Get Me Out Of Here! and breaking through the Israeli naval blockade of Gaza on a ‘peace’ flotilla — has caused her to embrace Islam.
She has stopped eating pork, she told the world, hasn’t had a drink in 45 days and has reached page 60 of the Koran.
There is nothing wrong with religious conversions — or using eBay, for that matter. But stir them into the colourful Blair/Booth family mix and you are left with a bizarre soap opera.
One commentator went so far as to call this family the ‘new Osbournes’. The parallels are certainly striking. I have interviewed Ozzy and Sharon and emerged dazed from both encounters.
The feeling is similar after two hours in the company of Tony Booth. As an interviewee, he is delightfully indiscreet. But listening to his track record as a father, you quickly conclude you wouldn’t give him a budgie to rear, let alone eight daughters.
Party animal: Tony has been a lifelong supporter of the Labour Party. He is pictured here at the party's 2006 conference with his current wife Steph (left) and former wife Gale Howard - the mother of Cherie
Party animal: Tony has been a lifelong supporter of the Labour Party. He is pictured here at the party's 2006 conference with his current wife Steph (left) and former wife Gale Howard - the mother of Cherie
Five minutes into our interview, he has confessed that the last time there were more than two of his daughters in the same room — ‘which I try to avoid because they tend to rip me to pieces’ — he didn’t recognise one of them.
‘Poor, um, was it Jenia?’ he asks his long-suffering wife, who seems to know more about his daughters than he does. 
‘I hadn’t seen her for five years. I started talking to this perfectly nice girl. After a while she smiled and said to Steph: “Dad doesn’t recognise me, does he.” ’
Steph rolls her eyes. ‘It was mortifying, but yes, he’s a terrible father. It’s awful, but rather typical, I’m afraid. I’m the one who has to keep tabs on birthdays and names. But he is very fond of them all, in his own way.’
Well, not all of them, patently. We shall get on to his golden girl — Cherie — and her eBay obsession in time, but first we talk about Lauren.
Confusingly, as if there aren’t enough female names in the mix, what with eight daughters and four ex-wives, he calls Lauren Sarah, the birth name she later changed.
He scoffs continually as we talk about Lauren/Sarah. His reaction on hearing about her conversion was to ‘laugh my head off’ and ask: ‘Whatever next?’
‘I mean, come on, the girl doesn’t have a spiritual bone in her body,’ he says. 
‘Anyway, can you convert from Judaism to Islam?
‘The things is her mother was Jewish. Sarah wasn’t brought up a practicising Jew, but it goes down the female line, doesn’t it?’
He points out that Lauren hates her mother Pamela Smith, a model, ‘almost as much as she hates me. So maybe that’s what this is all about’.
Glamorous couple: Tony had a relationship with model Susie Riley after his first marriage broke up. The result was two more daughters, Lauren and Emma
Glamorous couple: Tony had a relationship with model Susie Riley after his first marriage broke up. The result was two more daughters, Lauren and Emma
The Booth family tree is so complicated that Tony had to start his autobiography with a diagram. The fact that many of the women he was involved with were actresses and models — going by both birth and stage names — further baffles.
To summarise, Cherie’s mother was Gale Howard (nee Joyce Smith), an actress. Booth walked out on that marriage when Cherie was seven and her sister Lyndsey was five.
He took up with Pamela Smith — whose modelling name was Susie Riley. They never married, though they had two daughters, Lauren and Emma.
Two further marriages followed — to the actress Pat Phoenix in 1986 and Nancy Jaeger in 1988. He has been with Steph Buckley, a former teacher and Labour Party activist, for 14 years. 
‘All his daughters have told him I’m the last or they will kill him,’ she says.
Of all his family, it’s Lauren who inspires the most exasperation. Tony admits he has watched with mounting horror this particular daughter’s very public journey though life.
She first came to attention as a journalist — her favourite subject was her brother-in-law, who happened to be the prime minister.
Her fame, believes her father, was a direct result of her willingness to exploit her family connections. Now, with a lifestyle choice he thinks is ‘more about politics than religion’, he thinks she has overstepped the mark.
‘If I thought she genuinely believed in Islam, it would be a different matter. But I’m afraid I don’t,’ he says.
‘I honestly don’t know what her motivation is. Maybe it’s mischief-making. Maybe a career move. Is she after a job with Al Jazeera, the Arabic news network? I don’t know, but it’s madness.
‘She described this conversion as a “shot of spiritual morphine”. That’s an odd analogy.
‘Morphine is terrible stuff. I should know. I was on it for long enough after I fell into a vat of paraffin in 1979. It’s not something you should seek out.’
The paraffin story is typically Tony Booth. In short, he nearly burned to death when, during a drunken attempt to get into his locked flat, he fell into a lit drum of paraffin.
Tony and Lauren haven’t spoken for some years, after he lashed out at her for ‘the things she said about Cherie and Tony, which were unforgivable’.
 
She in turn, hit back with lurid accusations of what a dreadful father he had been — a hideous tale of abandonment, neglect and violence.
‘Am I ashamed of her? Yes, I am. I used to just feel sorry for her and guilty for what part I might have played in making her the way she is,’ he says.
‘But in my opinion she crossed a line quite a while ago and there’s no going back. It is time for her to grow up and stop playing the victim. She’s 43 for goodness sake.’
Trying to untangle the rights and wrongs of this particular father/daughter relationship is impossible.
Since the four-times married Tony walked out when Lauren was not yet in her teens — something that was to be repeated with pretty much all his daughters — it is tempting to point the finger in his direction.
His account of the relationship breakdown is telling. He keeps saying they were close when she was a child, but offers scant evidence.
At one point, he starts to talk about reading her a particular storybook, then says: ‘Oh, actually, that was Emma, her sister. Come to think of it, I was always closer to Emma. She was a very sweet child.’
But weren’t we talking about Lauren/Sarah?
‘Oh yes. Sarah was always more difficult. She was a very . . . flouncy child. She wanted to be an actress, you know. Started out as one.
‘She asked me to come and see her, and asked for my honest opinion. I told her she wasn’t very good and should forget about an acting career. She didn’t listen, of course. But I was right. She was wooden.’
You tend to love even your most difficult children, I say. Tony sips his tea studiously and says nothing, so I turn the observation into a direct question. Do you love Lauren/Sarah?
‘No, I don’t think I do,’ he says, which causes Steph to slap her head and say: ‘Oh, Tony, you can’t say that.’ But he has.
‘Well, that’s the way I feel,’ he says, defiantly. ‘It’s sad, but what can you do? The line was crossed a long time ago and once you cross it, there’s no going back.
‘Sarah is entitled to her opinions — but she’s not entitled to exploit her family position and contacts. I’m afraid she has been doing that for years.’
Steph interjects to say that, when you are a parent, ‘the door should always be left open for a child’. But Tony won’t have it.
Later, she says: ‘He’s as bad as Sarah is. They are actually quite alike.’
Does she think there can ever be a rapprochement? ‘I am in touch with Sarah. I email her. I want to keep the lines of communication open. Her father is 80 next year . . .’ she says.
Will there be an invite to his birthday party for Lauren/Sarah?
‘I doubt it,’ he says, huffily.
The animosity seems odd enough, but in the light of what follows — an account of his relationship with Cherie, which amounts to half an hour of him polishing her halo —– it is stranger still.
There were many years when Tony and Cherie had a fraught relationship, too, yet today he says he is ‘as proud of her as any father could be’.
He tells me four times about her brilliance in her Bar exams, her scholarships and her talent as a lawyer, mother and campaigner. In short, she is everything her half-sister is not.
‘She’s loyal, too,’ he says, which might be the nub of it. ‘She has defended me to the hilt, even when I haven’t deserved it.
‘I heard recently that someone had slagged me off and she laid right into them. Good for her.’
He’s brutally honest about the fact that he was a ‘terrible father’ to Cherie. When she got married, he was in hospital recovering after the paraffin incident, so he didn’t give her away at her wedding to Tony Blair.
It’s not clear she would have even wanted him to at that time, anyway, given that he was a drunk. (He gave up alcohol during his stay in hospital and credits Cherie with his rehabilitation.) 
‘She came to visit me every week, which I didn’t deserve,’ he says. It sounds as if Cherie did the compromising in this relationship. Steph has an interesting take on why they are now close.
‘His other daughters — especially Cherie — have found a way of dealing with Tony. They accept him for who he is, with all his failings.
‘Sarah has never been able to do that. She wants her father to be the sort of man that fathers should be. Tony can never be that man.’
Lauren once accused her father of being unable to think of anyone but himself — and he does have an astonishing ability to put himself centre stage.
Steph rolls her eyes and says: ‘He’s an actor. They are odd creatures.’
Tony nods and launches into a passionate explanation of how, when you command your audience, you feel god-like. 
‘When you come off the stage, though, you are b*******,’ he says. 
His politics have always run alongside his acting career, and he was delighted when he learned that his daughter had taken up with a young Labour hopeful called Tony Blair.
What did he think of Tony when they first met?
‘I thought: ‘‘Thank God.’’ ’ He bursts out laughing. 
‘You should have seen some of the others.’
His strident political opinions caused much consternation at No. 10 when the Blairs were in residence. Booth is openly anti-private education and marched against the Iraq war.
He once — ‘actually more than once’ — put the phone down on Blair’s media fixer Alastair Campbell ‘because I won’t be told what to do’.
He’s fiercely loyal, though, refusing to condemn Blair for any of the ‘tough calls he had to make’.
‘I marched against Iraq. I didn’t agree with it, but I believe to this day he acted for the right reasons. He is a decent man,’ he says. Despite this, it appears that Booth was more than happy to play court jester during his times in the Blair household.
He tells a wonderful story about Cherie chasing him around the prime minister’s country residence, Chequers — ‘to give me hell’.
He had driven them there and ‘got us lost on the way, and she wasn’t having any of it’.
On another occasion, Tony Blair emerged from a day of meetings to find chaos reigning.
‘Oh, that day, my grandson Euan was being a right pain in the a***, and the other grandchildren and I decided to teach him a lesson.
‘There is a pillar in the flat in Downing Street and we tied him to it, then scarpered. His Dad came in eventually and asked: “What the hell is going on here?” ’
So is he a good grandfather? He becomes suddenly serious.
‘I hope I am. I can talk to them about the mistakes I’ve made — and hopefully they won’t make them too. But they are good kids, solid. Cherie is a terrific mother.’
To him, too, it seems. For what comes across from his account of their relationship is that she very much plays the part of forgiving parent to her errant father.
‘Every time she sees me she says: “Now, what on earth have you been up to?” ’ he says, cocking his head to one side and doing a good impression of his daughter. He seems quite frightened of her.
‘Oh yes, she can be terrifying when she gets going. And believe me, she’s let me have it many times. You don’t mess with Cherie.
‘But I’m still her dad. I still give her cuddles when she needs them, and I do love her. I tell her that, too.’
He pooh-poohs the whole eBay escapade, dismissing it with a laugh and the comment: ‘Who cares?’
‘So she messes around on the computer after she’s finished her work. Doesn’t everyone?’ 
But not everyone tries to sell a former prime minister’s signature. Surely even Tony Booth can see this is deeply questionable.
He opens his mouth, then shuts it again and says: ‘No comment’. 
As it always does with Booth, it ends in laughter.
I ask if he’ll be offended if he gets a Christmas present from eBay and he plays along, quipping: ‘At least I’ll be able to look up the internet and see what she paid for it.’
In return, Cherie will probably get a book from him.
‘It’s become something of a joke. She’s always saying: “This from the man who bought me The Female Eunuch for my 13th birthday.”
‘I come right back with: “And it was the making of you.” ’
As for Lauren/Sarah, there is unlikely to be any present at all. Perhaps it is for the best that, due to her new religion, she won’t be celebrating Christmas anyway.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1324985/Cherie-Blairs-father-Tony-reveals-doesnt-love-daughter-Lauren-Booth.html#ixzz13scK9EDO