Welcome To Bermuda, Mr. Blair

A certain amount excitement has been generated locally about British Prime Minister Tony Blair's decision to spend his Easter vacation in Bermuda, his first trip to the Island. He's due to arrive on the British Airways flight from London this evening and will doubtless be hoping for a break from the problems that continue to dog him back home about Britain's involvement in the Iraq war.

Some people here have other ideas, however. Lisa Kitson, administrator of envirotalk.org, is organising a protest to greet Mr. Blair at the airport. The protest is part of a revival of the Bermuda For Peace network, which organised a rally against the war in February last year. Although Ms. Kitson is not expecting a huge demonstration this evening, she's encouraging anyone opposed to the UK's involvement in Iraq to join the protest on the roundabout outside the airport, next to the Causeway, at 6.20pm. Anyone unable to attend but who would like to be involved in any other activities should contact her directly.

Comments

[njegos on 13.04.04 at 18:48]

Jake:

Here are some these extracts from the Summation for the Prosecution by Justice Robert Jackson.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/nuremberg/Jacksonclose.htm

“We charge unlawful aggression but we are not trying the motives, hopes, or frustrations which may have led Germany to resort to aggressive war as an instrument of policy. The law, unlike politics, does not concern itself with the good or evil in the status quo, nor with the merits of the grievances against it. It merely requires that the status quo be not attacked by violent means and that policies be not advanced by war. We may admit that overlapping ethnological and cultural groups, economic barriers, and conflicting national ambitions created in the 1930's, as they will continue to create, grave problems for Germany as well as for the other peoples of Europe. We may admit too that the world had failed to provide political or legal remedies which would be honorable and acceptable alternatives to war. We do not underwrite either the ethics or the wisdom of any country, including my own, in the face of these problems. But we do say that it is now, as it was for sometime prior to 1939, illegal and criminal for Germany or any other nation to redress grievances or seek expansion by resort to aggressive war. “

and this:

“The central crime in this pattern of crimes, the kingpin which holds them all together, is the plot for aggressive wars. The chief reason for international cognizance of these crimes lies in this fact. Have we established the Plan or Conspiracy to make aggressive war?

Certain admitted or clearly proven facts help answer that question. First is the fact that such war of aggression did take place. Second, it is admitted that from the moment the Nazis came to power, every one of them and every one of the defendants worked like beavers to prepare for some war. The question therefore comes to this: Were they preparing for the war which did occur, or were they preparing for some war which never has happened? It is probably true that in their early days none of them had in mind what month of what year war would begin, the exact dispute which would precipitate it, or whether its first impact would be Austria, Czechoslovakia, or Poland. But I submit that the defendants either knew or were chargeable with knowledge that the war for which they were making ready would be a war of German aggression. This is partly because there was no real expectation that any power or combination of powers would attack Germany. But it is chiefly because the inherent nature of the German plans was such that they were certain sooner or later to meet resistance and that they could then be accomplished only by aggression.”

Now replace Nazis with “neo-conservatives and their dupes”, America and the UK for Germany and the “Axis of Evil” for Austria, Czechoslovakia and Poland and it all becomes rather clear, no?

"I see a significant number of the Sadr militia being attacked in response to their unprovoked aggression."

Unprovoked? Where on earth do you get your information from? You do not win friends or promote "freedom of the press", by shutting down newspapers that don't tow the CPA party line.

"You see collateral damage as something the army is uncaring about. I see it as a central tenent in war fighting that is a new doctrine. Remember, in WWII German cities were fair game, as were British."

Hang on. First you say "armies" don't terrorise civilians and then you point to classic examples of deliberate terror bombing. Your argument is entirely self-defeating.

"I see Saddam Hussein, a leader unwilling to bow to international pressure, and yet happy to spend on his family's lavish lifestyle as bearing the blame."

Well Jake, not even the DIA agrees with you. And it don't get much more official than that! Check it out:

http://www.progressive.org/0801issue/nagy0901.html

Now how about answering some of our questions?

[jake on 13.04.04 at 19:02]

Good Nit.

njegos,

Thanks for this. It was a good read (I am going to read it in detail a little later.)

But to your responses:

1. The example of the British/German bombing was to demonstrate that the concept of collateral damage is a new one. Civilians used to be the target as well. That is not the case today, and has not been for some time.

2. Newspapers that incite violence here are shut down too. It is part of the legitimate boundries of free speech. It is no justification for the killing done by Sadr's mob.

I will READ in detail the Jackson submission and I am happy to respond.

But hey, if you support Sadr, why not say so?

[njegos on 13.04.04 at 20:44]

Jake:

You can split hairs as much as you want but "collateral damage" simply allows the US military to justify the death of one
hundred civilians as long as there is at least one "terrorist suspect" buried in the same rubble. It is, to coin a phrase, Waco as foreign policy. But unlike Waco, it is costing America dearly in blood and treasure.

You then claim that Sadr and his supporters incited violence against an army of occupation whose entire "legitimacy", incidentally, is based on nothing but violence. Look below at an account from the Independent which reveals Bremer's reasons for shutting down Sadr's low circulation newspaper and compare that to what was actually printed. Bremer is an idiot. His actions have turned Sadr into a hero and united the Sunni and Shiite opposition.

(beginning of quote)

"I am satisfied that your newspaper ... published many articles ... that made the security situation unstable and that you are encouraging violence against the Coalition Forces and the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA)." To wit - as they say in the courts - an article on 26 February stating that the destruction of new Iraqi police barracks in Iskandariyah that same month was caused by a missile fired by an American helicopter.

"In the same edition," Bremer wrote, "you published an article entitled Bremer is following the example of Saddam". In that story, Bremer claimed, the paper had stated that the occupation authorities were, "making the Iraqi people hungry so that they will spend their time trying to find food and will not have the chance to demand their political and individual freedoms.

"This report is false and the CPA is doing its best to provide food and medical help for the Iraqi people and to repair the infrastructure of the country and put the fundamentals of political, economic and individual freedoms in place." These efforts, Bremer said, were previously "outside the dreams of the Iraqi people".

There then followed a list of further sins. On 6 August last year, the paper accused the United States of invading Iraq "not only to remove Saddam and steal Iraq's oil but to destroy the character and civilisation of the Iraqi people. On 21 August, the paper claimed that the Americans in Sadr City in Baghdad - a vast area of Shia slums - were "fighting Islam and its symbols." That represented "a serious threat of violence against the Coalition Forces' and against the Iraqi people who are co-operating with the CPA in the reconstruction of Iraq."

Mr. Bremer did not mention that in the incident a US helicopter crew took down an Islamic flag from a pole in Sadr City. Yesterday, the paper's staff replied. "Suppression of the press", they cried. Al-Hawza al-Natiqa was merely "letting our people know what is going on in secret ... ". From the Balfour Declaration of 1917 – giving Britain's support for a Jewish homeland in Palestine - to the new "criminal constitution in Iraq", the people were lied to. The "honest voices" of journalists' could not be silenced.

(end of quote)

It doesn't take a "supporter of Sadr" to realise that the Americans have no one but themselves to blame for this fiasco.

[njegos on 13.04.04 at 20:55]

BTW, do y'all like the way Tony Blair is extracting maximum publicity during his visit here? Posing for photos with American tourists (that's tourists, not terrorists which comes at the end of the week in Washington), kicking a football with policeman, etc. See, he really is just an ordinary lovable bloke who likes to have a laugh.

Pass me the sick bag, someone.

[jake on 13.04.04 at 22:42]

I just watched the program with George Bush.

Watching that I have greater doubts as to his veracity, and his ability to control the situation.

And yes - this is still Jake talking.

[njegos on 14.04.04 at 00:03]

It was pretty awful, wasn't it? You know, it struck me how much the US government resembles the former Soviet leadership these days; you are far more likely to get at the truth by believing the exact opposite of what they tell you.

Did you watch the press conference afterwards? Apart from the normal bumbling and stumbling, it was mostly cliches about how Saddam Hussein was a bad guy and that America is bringing freedom to Iraq. Then he declared that freedom is not a gift from the American people but from "the Almighty" and that it is America's duty to deliver that freedom. So it is a crusade after all. That will reassure the Muslim world.

And to think that Phony Tony looks up to this dangerous moron. We are in deep s**t.

[Lizardfish on 14.04.04 at 00:29]

Sorry njegos - I have run out of sick bags. I have been puking my guts up hearing of all the butt kising that's been going on. Tennis match, wahoo by the pool, calling all the people in the island who know how to kick something just so Blair's son can play some footie, Michael Douglas at Aqua, Premier and friends at Camden, free entrance for the Blair's family at the Bermuda Aquarium Museum and Zoo (as if they could not spare $10 a ticket!) FREE MANSION IN TUCKERS TOWN!!

I saw the picture with the American tourists too. OMG this man is good. Really good. He's got everyone going "ahhhhhhhhhh what a lovely man" and while he holidays with his own family, 100s of famillies have been destroyed because him and Bush. I'm talking innocent people here. American, British and Iraqi.

Yet, I'm the one getting attacked because Bermuda is "not the sort of place to protest against paying visitors"

Oh please, this man has hardly paid for anything, it is not going to stop anyone else from coming here and if they were as bad Blair, why should we be wanting to attract their custom? It is shocking how many Bermudians don't care about whether he is or he isn't bad. They care about our image and the $$$$ this image gets us only.

Well, what kind of image does warmly welcoming war criminals give us?

I'm not going to get into the debate about is Blair a good guy or isn't he again. You guys have done fine without me on that!! Way to go! Is this the longest ever comments section that Phil has ever had to deal with??

But I will ask Jake and people with similar views to ask yourselves, this. If there really was WMD in Iraq, why did they pick on Iraq and not Israel....why wasn't Bush on their case too? Why have they tried so hard ot make links between Iraq and 9/11, when the WMD plan didn't seem to be working. Why??????????

OIL has a lot to do with it (www.itsabouttheoil.com) And war is always good for distraction away from the fact that your domestic and other foreign policies suck....

Bush is more than likely distracting the world from the Israel/Palestine conflict because that situation stinks as well.

The Americans don't give a toss about liberating Iraqis. If they really cared about people, why are they focusing on Iraq? There are so many more people they could go and help in other countries without spending all this money on a war.

When are you going to wake up and smell the.... OIL?

Jake - are you/ have you been in the armed forces then? I am allowed to have opinion on war even though I haven't been in the front lines. Also FYI I took a subsiduary course at the University of Manchester on war and technology and learnt a lot about the evolution of warfare and tactics, so don't be so quick to dismiss me. I also got an A, in A-level History while I was at a Grammar school. I studied and wrote essays regularly on British foreign policies and wars (it was quite long ago now but I am still proud of my diverse education!). First and foremost I'm a scientist and I learnt that in order to reach a conclusion you need evidence!! So please don't tell me I don't know what I am talking about because I have not joined the forces lately. That is lame.

Where is the evidence that justifies the war? You say it is good that they acted on what they thought to be a threat but that is BS, if they really wanted to deal with a global threat they would have knocked on North Korea's door.

Njegos. Can't offer you a sick bag but would love to buy you a drink! Are you on the island?

Lisa.

[jake on 14.04.04 at 09:24]

There you go with the Blair war criminal again - if it is a charge, make it. But don't convict before the trial Lisa.

I am glad you got an A on your paper. Education is for everyone. And yes I wore a uniform. I guess you could say I wrote a few papers too.

As for Israel, I do not put Saddam Hussein and the state of Israel in the same boat. Don't get me wrong here - I do not agree with the tactics used by the Israeli government against the Palestinians. But Israel has been responding to countries that seek its destruction.

Israel/Palestine has victims and aggressors on both sides. I support the people in each instance. I wish the Palestinians had a Martin Luther King or a Mahatma Gandhi to lead them. Even Mandela, who supported the option of armed resistance would be better placed. What they need is the moral high ground - not more bombs on buses.

I am sincerely questioning Bush after that presentation last night. I am not so willing to condemn Tony Blair. And it is ok for us to welcome him to the island. We need his support in improving our relationship with Government House and the US Counsel and everyone outside of Cuba.

Now, I'm off to the gym. Jake.

[Lizardfish on 14.04.04 at 09:46]

Good points about Isreal, but the US are supporting them, which is shocking. One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter.....

FYI, A-levels are not just a paper. They are two years of lessons followed by more than 7 hours of exams, EACH! Sorry, it's not really relevant but I really don't like it when people dress down the British Education system (even if it is going downhill) A-levels are (or were when I did them) the equivalent of an American undergrad.

So Jake, you have been in the Bermuda Regiment?

TB is a war criminal because all the reasons why they picked on Iraq have not been proved.

Saddam is a global threat/ has WMD
Iraq has major links with al-Queda (sic?)
Iraqis need to be liberated

The third reason, is true, however it is not a good enough reason to risk so many lives of American and British troops and even that has been admitted by Paul Wolfowitz, Bush's warmongering side kick.

The First two reasons have NOT been proved and until they are (how long should we wait, it's been more than a year and over 10,000 people have died) then it means that TB and Bush are war criminals.

They did not have the evidence before they went to war and therefore it is classified as a war of agression. TB is a war criminal because he did not have evidence before the war. You don't start a war in the hope of finding a reason for it later!

This fact alone, without proving what the war was all really about is enough to condem TB as a war criminal.

Lisa

[jake on 14.04.04 at 13:34]

On your education. I apologise for mis-reading your A Level achievement which sincerely is quite impressive. But do not overstate it. I was educated in the US and the UK. A Levels are similar to AP's in the US. UK undergraduate degrees are the equivalent to US undergraduate degrees, not A Levels. But let's not compare education.

On your (sic): al Qaeda. My mistake.

Other than that, you throw around the charge of war criminal. Here is my view.

TB did have evidence that he and his Government deemed credible. On that basis he want to war.

Now one of two situations exist:
1. The evidence is proven correct.
2. The evidence is proven incorrect.

My question is this. Was the evidence of such a weight that a reasonable leader, exercising the proper judgment could base a decision to launch a war? If it was, then Blair is in the clear. If it was not, then he should resign.

Recognise that military intel in that part of the world is hard to obtain, but the consequences of him doing nothing and getting it wrong could be more severe. Look at North Korea. Now that they have nucleor capability and a leader with less fries than a full happy meal, the world is at risk. I am not convinced that the information - that he had, not just the stuff released to the public - was so lacking that he would not have been so justified. Unless you have a security clearance higher than I suspect you have, neither do you. So we speculate based on what we perceive of the man. I perceive him to be a good, if not great leader.

You have your perceptions.

But without the evidence of what he had, and then an impartial assessment on its reasonableness, it is wrong to brand him a war criminal. Even Nuremberg had due process.

[njegos on 14.04.04 at 14:27]

Here are a few must-read pieces:

Robert Fisk:

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=5300

2 journalists in Falluja:

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=5309

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=5308

It’s simply horrifying. What is clear from these tactics is that the Israelis are in charge of this operation. It’s a re-run of Jenin. The significance of this will not be lost on Iraqis. What a terrific recruitment week this has been for holy Islamic warriors.

Jake:

You cannot equate Israeli and Palestinian behaviour. Israels are the aggressors against the Palestinians. The Israelis kicked 750,000 Palestinians off their land. Over time, these numbers have swelled to 3 million. Many of them have known no life outside squalid refugee camps. To add insult to injury, Israel continues to steal land and water and bulldozes olive groves to build settlements on occupied territory for nearly 300,000 Jews, many of whom are recent immigrants. The Israeli boot has been firmly on the neck of Palestinians for nearly 40 years and it started way before anyone had heard of Saddam Hussein. But no US Cavalry in sight here.

You are angry about bombs on buses. So how should Palestinians fight the Israelis? With sarcasm? Unlike Israel, they don’t receive billions of dollars of US taxpayers money to buy the most modern weaponry available. They don’t have a single US senator pleading their cause. Perhaps they should just continue to sit in their open sewers and twiddle their thumbs for another 50 years until that “moral high ground” suddenly emerges. Is this what you would do? Come to think of it, the ANC planted bombs in South Africa. Why did that not cost them the “moral high ground”?

We use an entirely different scale of humanity to measure Palestinian suffering, one which is controlled by Israel and it powerful allies in Washington. Not only that, there is not even a whimper of protest each time Sharon (another DC-approved war criminal) defies Bush (vis. Jenin and the “Security Wall”). “Unhelpful”. “Regrettable”. These are the tough words that sum up Washington’s no-nonsense response to Israeli intransigence. Contrast this with the blood-curdling rhetoric and “tomahawk diplomacy” against other nations who refuse to dance to Washington’s tune. Or the dishonourable silence that accompanied the death of Rachel Corrie, a US citizen literally bulldozed to death while trying to prevent the destruction of Palestinian houses.

Israel has America by the balls, plain and simple. The intensity of the grip depends to a considerable extent of the ignorance of the American public. That is why Palestinians are continually portrayed as a non-people without a history, a culture, grievances, ambitions etc. Palestinian violence, must never be given a context. It is, by definition, pure evil for the sake of evil. No wonder Americans applaud every Israeli “surgical” air strike or commando raid. At any rate, I think we can all agree that this policy is not winning Americans many friends.

Lisa:

Offer accepted. Will contact you in very near future to fix a time.

So much for the "private visit". I am so relieved that the sickly Blair-Bermuda love-a-thon is drawing to a close. Re the Douglas dinner, do you think Cherie asked KZJ to portray her in some future bound-to-flop “Life and Times of a Humanitarian Lawyer”? Wouldn’t put anything past Toady and his wife.

Not surprised about the free visit to the Aquarium. I can confirm 2nd hand, so-to-speak, that the Blahs are cheapskates. A few years back, they demanded a discount on a room at a hotel in South Devon. When the owner refused, they decided to stay elsewhere.

[Lizardfish on 14.04.04 at 18:06]

Jake,

You have way too much faith in TB. If they had evidence they would have revealed it by now for sure. Both of them are getting hammered for this war and the really could do with revealing evidence. I don't need to the pictures, the statements made by spies or anything. I want to know that a pannel has assed this and approved that there was enough evidence.

It was a pre-emptive strike, it was illegal! They did not have UN support. Hans Blix was busy doing weapons inspections and Bush (probably) said (something like this) to Blair, "oh screw this Tony, I can't believe nobody has found anything yet, let's go and invade Iraq while we've still got an excuse."

Now that they haven't managed to prove any WMD they are still trying to make this into a liberation of the Iraqi's/ war on terror. Bush is using his religous banter to gain support now even more than before because that's one of the only reasons for war he has left, at the end of the day.... you can't prove that God didn't want this happen.

The UN should forbid any leaders to back up their foreign policy with religion.

I'll be at the airport to see Blair off tmrw.
Lisa

Jake: about the education thing (off topic I know and I am sorry but this is my final comment) I was talking about A-levels... but the US undergrads are more broad based than the UK undergrads (I am not saying which is better or worse). In the UK your do your subject and maybe a small subsiduary each year and that's it. All the people I have met and worked with who have a US undergrad degree in Biology have an understanding and knowledge up to or barely above the A-level standard in the UK. Some of my professors who work in the UK but are from the US said the same thing. For the subject you major in, the UK system takes you into a greater depth for undergrads. (however we are specialised in the uK a lot earlier on than in the US and that is not really good for everyone..fewer opportunities)...The only thing that is an equal qualification for a particular subject between the US ans the UK is a PhD, only in the UK you can do it in 3 years and the US, it takes at least 5 years.

I take it you were in the Bermuda regiment then seeing as you did not correct me on that? So this means you would know all about warfare then eh?

[John on 14.04.04 at 18:12]

"You cannot equate Israeli and Palestinian behaviour. Israels are the aggressors against the Palestinians."

What? With the notable exception of folks like Baruch Goldstein, even the nuttiest "settlers" don't run into cafes and blow themselves up out of "desperation."

Some clarification, please.

Cheers,
John

[njegos on 14.04.04 at 18:29]

"UK undergraduate degrees are the equivalent to US undergraduate degrees, not A Levels."

This is misleading. A US high school graduate would find it extremely difficult to get a place at a good British university. However, I know of A level and International Baccalaureate students who easily skipped the 1st 2 years of their US undergraduate degree. Unlike the UK, there is no national curriculum (NB. I am not talking about national tests) in US high schools that prepares you for further education. US educational standards are ad hoc and often quite low. The sad fact is that the American education system is expensive and inefficient.

"My question is this. Was the evidence of such a weight that a reasonable leader, exercising the proper judgment could base a decision to launch a war? If it was, then Blair is in the clear. If it was not, then he should resign."

Paul O'Neill said Bush was obsessed with Iraq.
Richard Clarke said Bush was obsessed with Iraq.
Toady's attorney general refuses to publish his full advice regarding the legality of the war.
Toady and the gang included the "45-minutes away from Armageddon" howler in an "intelligence" dossier knowing it was total rubbish.
The core of another "damning" intelligence dossier was an obsolete PHD thesis.
UN inspectors were not allowed to complete their work.
Colin Powell lied to the UN about mobile bio-weapons laboratories.
etc.

Does this sound like leaders exercising reasonable judgment Jake? Are we supposed to exonerate Toady merely because he pulls one of those trademark impassioned grimmaces and insists that WMDs will finally be found? Incredibly, this is how some people defend Blair - "But he really does believe that Saddam had WMDs, you know." Is this really good enough for you?

Damn all evidence then, soldier, and fire those missiles!!

[njegos on 14.04.04 at 18:36]

"You cannot equate Israeli and Palestinian behaviour. Israels are the aggressors against the Palestinians."

John:

Does Israel occupy the West Bank and Gaza or do Palestinians occupy the state of Israel?

[Lizardfish on 14.04.04 at 19:24]

I will be at the gates of Government House tomorrow at 2:30pm (Blair is there tmrw until 3pm apparently) to bid farewell to the "diry rotten scoundrel". If anyone would care to join and can get out of work, I shall see you there.

L.

[John on 14.04.04 at 19:54]

"Does Israel occupy the West Bank and Gaza or do Palestinians occupy the state of Israel?"

While we're being rhetorical, was this occupation the result of naked Jewish aggression or a response to Egyptian incitement and a Jordanian invasion?

And are the Palestinians of Israel treated worse than their relatives in Arab countries?

Furthermore, to put the shoe on the other foot, how would the Palestinians behave were they in the position of power the Israelis are?

Cheers,
John

[Bryant Trew on 14.04.04 at 19:56]

The one thing that struck me about Colin Powell's UN presentation last year was how everyone was oohing and aahing over the effectiveness of the presentation. But as you watched what they meant by "effectiveness" you realised that they were talking about how he spoke and NOT the conclusiveness of his claims.
Time after time again, the things he claimed were purely speculative - I can hardly recall anything definitive except for statements linked to the past gassing of Kurds.

Personally I did not see any justification for pre-emptive war, when everyone else was on the "there's the proof" line of thinking. All I saw was a comparative devaluation of life in Iraq on the lines of: 3,000 dead Americans is a world crisis, but 30,000 dead Iraqis is no big deal [even if our speculation turns out to be 100% incorrect].

The sad reality is that many of us thought that the US/UK simply could not disclose the definitive and conclusive evidence that justified the war. In a way many HAD to trust that there was other information that could not be revealed, because it was believed that surely Bush and Blair would not go to war on a purely speculative basis. So far it appears that the war was based not on 80%, 70%, 60% 50% solid information. They hardly had 10% solid information, and that 10% was based on decades-old information. Not only is that immoral and incredibly irresponsible, it absolutely should be a crime - heck, just look at how the war hawks turned into apologists 3, 6 and 9 months after searching for WMDs.

Simply put, you should have a very significant degree of definitive/conclusive data that you are faced with a war threat before you go to war. The US/UK lacked that, and basically tried to bully and bribe security council countries into supporting them on the UN vote. When they knew they weren't going to get the support, they basically said **** the vote - we're going to war anyway. All of this was while NOTHING in Powell's presentation alluded to an IMMINENT threat. I point this out because even the possession of weapons is not a crime - it is the use of weapons that justifies war.

So the questions are these: What is the basis of striking before you are struck? What is the new rule, and how will that rule keep us from plunging the entire world into war? If every country went to war on the basis of pure speculation of threats, wouldn't the doctrine of pre-emption lead to the destruction of the human race? Did 9/11 warrant pre-emptive doctrine? And finally, should the basis for pre-emptive doctrine for the west be the same for every other country protecting itself (a rhetorical question in my mind).

Well, to me, If Korea or China used the US/UK guideline as a basis for launching nukes we'd all be wearing HAZMATS suits - assuming you were still alive after the blast that is. Succinctly: Should I kill you because I THINK(even on basis of conjecture) that you MIGHT want to kill me sometime in the future?

PS: Sadaam Hussein is gone, but that does not validate the war even on the premise of creating a free Iraq. All out war was not the only way to get rid of him. If Bush is now going to propose that this mission is a humanitarian one, we have to ask if all other options to achieve the same result were exercised - I'd say no they weren't.

[BDA JOe on 14.04.04 at 21:53]

I only just discovered this thread today, and I feel compelled to contribute to the conversation that it seems you were having before the topic switched to what the protesters are actually complaining about.

For the past several months and weeks, before the gang violence issue, the main topic of discussion was the PLP's 'push' for independence. Alex Scott and others have been trying to create justification for independence with the airport-car incident etc. So why not make a huge act of defiance by acting as though the British PM is not even here? No instead, they embrace the leader of the 'opressive, evil and colonialistic country' by inviting him to dinner! By getting him to come to a cabinet meeting in which he probably has no interest, nothing to add to and asking him questions about geopolitics and hoping that he's not going to tell them something that he hasn't already told the world media a hundred times already!

Please, give me a break.

[jake on 14.04.04 at 22:06]

Lisa,

My military training was done at the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst. I did not respond because on reflection no point is made by my service or your lack of it.

On the education tip, let's get off it. I respect UK education having done my undergraduate work there. I respect US education having done my post graduate work there. I cannot speak to Biology as I did not study it beyond high school. You know more about that than I do.

But when I studied in the UK, no one saw A Levels as other than a transition between high school and University. A way to get into a good University. In the US that would be Junior college, an Associates Degree or a Diploma. But you know what? If you want to believe that your A Levels were superior, it's ok with me.

But since I am not really all that interested in giving you my resume, or peering into your academic history, let's get back to the discussion.

The ANC have succeeded because they stood away from violence and embraced international support. Violence prevents progress, and is not a legitimate strategy for the Palestinians. The moderates are making the real progress.

I attended a seminar tonight which talked about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. There was an interesting comment made I would like to share.

Looking at the history of anti-Semitism in Europe, and genocide against European Jews, and the history of European colonialism in Arab nations, the commenter quoted someone, whose name I did not catch, but he said this:

The conflict is similar to two abused children fighting, who see in each other, their father.

[Bryant Trew on 14.04.04 at 22:07]

"No instead, they embrace the leader of the 'opressive, evil and colonialistic country' by inviting him to dinner!"

Don't be surprised when people grovel at opportunities to rub shoulders with celebrities. Nevertheless, thinking ill of colonialism is not synonymous with thinking ill of the UK as you have implied it. One can hate the practice and remnants of colonialsm, while bearing no malice against the UK Government/people.

[BDA JOE on 14.04.04 at 22:53]

Are you serious? Britain and colonialism are synonomous. It was Britain that at one point had in it's controll nearly half of the world's land mass. If you say the word 'colonialist' (especially in the west) an image of the steriotypical Briton with a top hat and suit emerges just about everywhere.

As for Alex Scott, the fact that he is cozying up to Tony Blair, and having hm infront of the entire cabinet and not talking about independence at all is a sign to me that he is not being truthfull and forthcoming about his motives and intentions for independence.

[njegos on 14.04.04 at 23:06]

"While we're being rhetorical, was this occupation the result of naked Jewish aggression or a response to Egyptian incitement and a Jordanian invasion?"

If by "Egyptian incitement" you are refering to the fairy tale known as the offical version of the 1967 war then you might be interesting in the following:

In early 1967, the Israelis encroached on Arab land in the theoretically "demilitarised" zone south of the Golan Heights. This was a regular occurence and was calculated to provoke Syrian mortar attacks which it did. The Israelis finally retaliated with napalm and other explosives and shot down a number of Syrian planes. Israeli tanks moved north towards the border with Syria in preparation for war (Ezer Weizmann himself admitted this). Nasser, on the other hand, had no intention of fighting Israel but did not wish to lose face in the Arab world. So he made the empty "bellicose" gesture of asking the UN to remove itself from Gaza but not from Sharm al-Sheikh in the Sinai because he knew that Israel would view the blockade of the strategic Gulf of Aqaba as a causus belli. Unfortunately, the UN said "all or nothing", and Nasser could not back down. The UN withdrew completely and the trap was set. Israel's wish came true. The Arabs were smashed in 6 days. For most Israelis, the invasion of the West Bank, part of Eretz (Greater) Israel, was merely the fulfillment of a biblical prophecy. Zionism is, after all, an expansionist creed.

You might call it an early lesson in modern pre-emptive defense.

"And are the Palestinians of Israel treated worse than their relatives in Arab countries?"

And what if they aren't? Does this justify keeping 3m Palestinians in a giant open concentration camp?

"Furthermore, to put the shoe on the other foot, how would the Palestinians behave were they in the position of power the Israelis are?"

Impossible to answer. What you are really saying is: "You can't have your property back because you might kill me for having taken it from you."

[Lizardfish on 14.04.04 at 23:15]

Have e.mailed you Jake, as what I wanted to say was too off topic, sorry should have done that before and not subjected everyone to my oversensitive reactions to the education remarks ... :-)

My issue with the US is not that they should be supporting the Palestinians, but that they are supporting one side in this conflict at all.
They give Israel funds to fight the Palestinians. just like they gave Saddam funds to fight the Kurds. Doesn't mean that I support the Kurds just because I don't agree with the funding of a battle against them.

Anyway back to Iraq. Just wanted to say that Bryant Trew...where did you come from saying everything I wanted to say only better! I think I'm all out of points to make now...after 60+ comments on this topic!

It's been fun.

L.

[njegos on 14.04.04 at 23:28]

"The ANC have succeeded because they stood away from violence and embraced international support."

Absolute rubbish. The ANC admitted to many bombings and murders in their submission to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

http://www.mndaily.com/daily/1997/05/13/world_nation/wn13c.ap/

Moreover, the Palestinians have been trying to involve the UN for decades. It's Israel that shuns international support.

So again I ask, why the lack of sympathy for Palestinians?

(BTW, I think that all the current talk about anti-Semitism in Europe is a convenient distraction from Israeli misbehavior. Most Europeans see through this.)

[njegos on 14.04.04 at 23:35]

I think I will have to wrap up my participation pretty soon as well. Getting dark looks from my wife. Have a feeling she is getting ready to throw the computer out of the window.......

[Lizardfish on 14.04.04 at 23:44]

OMG! Would you listen to me, "it's been FUN"??? Talking about war and thousands dying... fun? Hmmmm. I did not mean it to sound so bad. I've enjoyed the debate and it's been really interesting.

[Lizardfish on 15.04.04 at 00:16]

If anyone is wanting to get more stuck in I found some really good blogs on Iraq:

http://www.empirenotes.org/

A guy in Iraq doing reporting. Seems pretty sound to me.

also I found on here - quote from Time Magazine:

In some neighborhoods, the Marines say, anyone they spot in the streets is considered a "bad guy." Says Marine Major Larry Kaifesh: "It is hard to differentiate between people who are insurgents or civilians. You just have to go with your gut feeling."

http://blog.newstandardnews.net/iraqdispatches/

another reporter

http://www.en-camino.org/iraqreports/

a whole group of blogs from around the world including Iraq.

And you MUST read this article. http://www.zmag.org/content/print_article.cfm?itemID=5323&sectionID=15 written by Terry Jones form Monty Python about Tony Blair's recent article, which he wrote while he was here in Bermuda. This is GREAT!

[John on 15.04.04 at 00:43]

"If by "Egyptian incitement" you are refering to the fairy tale known as the offical version of the 1967 war then you might be interesting in the following:"

Oddly enough, my "fairy tale" includes the Egyptian quasi-blockade the Straits of Tiran, among other things.

"In early 1967, the Israelis encroached on Arab land in the theoretically "demilitarised" zone south of the Golan Heights."

So did the Syrians, in spite of the "probably 80-90%" estimate of Israeli antagonism that Moshe Dayan admitted to.

"The Israelis finally retaliated with napalm and other explosives and shot down a number of Syrian planes."

What this has to do with Egypt or Jordan is quite beyond me. And most Israeli planes weren't and aren't equipped with napalm canisters, so I'm not sure I totally trust Wirth's account of what happened at the Golan.

"Israeli tanks moved north towards the border with Syria in preparation for war (Ezer Weizmann himself admitted this)."

With all due respect to Ezer, and the Soviet liars who propagated this myth for all it is worth, the Israelis did *not* move tanks towards the Golan. Nasser's deputy, Fawzi, observed the Golan himself and found that there was barely a *company* stationed on the Golan, much less an entire division. The Syrians were not even on full alert.

"Nasser, on the other hand, had no intention of fighting Israel but did not wish to lose face in the Arab world."

So he brought back divisions from Yemen for no apparent reason? Because al-Sadr was nothing more than a passing fancy for Amer?

Maybe not, but I don't have much sympathy for someone who picks a fight and loses: and then has the nerve to blame the British and the Americans for the mother of all aerial strikes.

"So he made the empty "bellicose" gesture of asking the UN to remove itself from Gaza but not from Sharm al-Sheikh in the Sinai because he knew that Israel would view the blockade of the strategic Gulf of Aqaba as a causus belli."

Right. That's why he told U Thant, in a private discussion, that the Arabs would win in a war with Israel? Several of his advisors did *not* want to occupy Sharm el Sheikh or the Straits: Arab public opinion was quite happy with a partial reoccupation of the Sinai.

"Unfortunately, the UN said "all or nothing", and Nasser could not back down."

Ergo, the UN, of all things, called his bluff and "made" him go to war? Peacekeepers had tied his hands and the Arab world was daring him to break out and embarass the Israelis? Please. That's not what the PLA, or the Canadians, Yugoslavs, and Indians stationed in the Sinai remember.

"Israel's wish came true."

Indeed, all the Jews were rubbing their hands with glee. Even Rabin, who was so worked up over an easy war with the Arabs that he had a bout of nicotine poisoning the days before June and had to be hospitalized. Even the ordinary Israelis who dug thousands of shallow graves in preparation for a grand Arab assault. Even Eshkol, whose voice cracked and broke in a 28 March address to the nation. Even the soldiers listening to his shaky speech in the Negev who cried and wept for the possible fate of their little nation. Even the Holocaust survivors who feared that, once again, a noose had been drawn around the neck of the Jewish people.

"For most Israelis, the invasion of the West Bank, part of Eretz (Greater) Israel, was merely the fulfillment of a biblical prophecy."

It meant a big deal to the Jewish people, sure. But let's not forget who fired the first shot and invaded Jerusalem from the east, out of loyalty to their suffering comrades in Egypt.

"Zionism is, after all, an expansionist creed."

Oh really. Would it shock you that there are "expansionist Zionists" who advocate a return to pre-67 lines? Probably.

"You might call it an early lesson in modern pre-emptive defense."

No dice. Poor (implied?) comparison, but I'd rather not get into it.

"And what if they aren't? Does this justify keeping 3m Palestinians in a giant open concentration camp?"

Generally, they aren't. This does not seem to make the news, but oh well. "Screw Arabs in Arab countries, what they do to their own people is not our business. Who cares about the Bedouin in Israel, they don't have a flag."

I see your Robert Fisk, and raise you a Finklestein. (Flawed) comparisons of the refugee camps to vintage concentration camps of the Boer War and 40s Poland speak for themselves.

"Impossible to answer. What you are really saying is: "You can't have your property back because you might kill me for having taken it from you.""

Far from it. What I'm really *asking* is: would the Palestinians behave with the same degree of restraint that the Israelis have in combating terrorist infiltration since the fifties, and would they tolerate the kind of shenanigans that go on in the occupied territories without flattening entire neighbourhoods with heavy artillery?

Tough call. I wouldn't count on a Hama by any means, but a small series of "Jeningrads" are quite possible.

Cheers,
John

[Bryant Trew on 15.04.04 at 07:53]

Lizardfish

:-) Here is the piece I wrote on this last year. Thought you might find it a good read.

http://www.bermudaonion.com/opinion/2003/021403bush.htm

BDAJOE

Britain's HISTORY is synonymous with colonialsm. It is NOT synonymous with Britain today to any similar degree. Any country that wants independence can have it, and Britain is not in the practice of imperialisation (unless you want to count Iraq). Your average UK citizen could not give a toss about imperialism, and sees colonialism as part of their past.

If Alex Scott was to have even made a peep to Tony Blair about independence, he would have been ravaged for raising the issue at an inappropriate time and with the wrong person. Tony Blair is NOT the person to begin an independence discussion with. He could hardly give a mince pie about it! That's why there is a FCO.

I'm not trying to defend AS, but I wish some critics would make up their mind about how they would like for him to behave. From where I'm sitting, nothing he does could please some disgruntled, frightened and paranoid, individuals.

[njegos on 15.04.04 at 14:15]

The latest example of winning hearts and minds in Iraq:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,9282015%255E1702,00.html

John:

The provocations on the Golan were overwhelmingly Israeli.
The blockade of the Straits of Tiran was only a partial blockade.
The Israelis annihilated its neighbours in a mere 6 days.

Some war for Israeli “survival”.

And of course there was no napalm. Just like the Israelis never used cluster bombs in Lebanon. Just like they have no nuclear, biological or chemical weapons. It’s such a peaceful nation.

But I give you credit for your gold mine of anecdotal evidence and hyperbole; shallow graves dug, weeping IDF conscripts, choked up politicians, nicotine fits, fates of little nations, a noose around the neck of the Jewish people. Oscar winning stuff John. All that was missing was the accompaniment of a mournful violin. (WARNING: War hysteria can be dangerous to your mental health.)

And the thrust of your question about the “probable” behaviour of Palestinians towards Israelis dawned on me after the Hama non-sequitur. What you are really saying is “You can’t have your property back because you are Arabs.”, a principle better known by its corollary, The Law of Return.

Lastly, it’s a complete waste of time trying to define the beliefs of “expansionist Zionists” who don’t believe in “expansion” (or even Zionism it seems). Perhaps we should leave the final words to some of those who were in a position to assess the Arab threat back in 1967. I wish I had faith that similar honesty will emerge with respect to Iraq from Cowboy George and the moral midget of 10 Downing St.

“I do not believe that Nasser wanted war. The two divisions which he sent into the Sinai on May 14 would not have been enough to unleash an offensive against Israel. He knew it, and we knew it."
Yitzhak Rabin, Le Monde, 28 February 1968

"All those stories about the huge danger we were facing because of our small territorial size, an argument expounded once the war was over, had never been considered in our calculations prior to the unleashing of hostilities. To pretend that the Egyptian forces concentrated on our borders were capable of threatening Israel's existence does not only insult the intelligence of any person capable of analyzing this kind of situation, but is primarily an insult to the Israeli army."
General Mattitahu Peled of the IDF General Staff, Le Monde, 3 June 1972

“There was never a danger of extermination. This hypothesis had never been considered in any serious meeting."
General Ezar Weizman, Ha'aretz, 29 March 1972

"We were not threatened with genocide on the eve of the six-day war, and we had never thought of such a possibility."
General Haim Barlev, Chief of General Staff Branch, Israel Defense Force, Ma'ariv, 4 April 1972

"There was no danger of annihilation. Israeli headquarters never believed in this danger."
General Chaim Herzog, Commanding General and first Military Governor, Israeli Occupied West Bank, Ma'ariv, 4 April 1972

"In June 1967, we again had a choice. The Egyptian Army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him."
Menachem Begin, Op-ed piece. The New York Times, 21 August 1982

Air Force Commander Gen. Ezer Weizmann stated there was "no threat of destruction" but attack was justified so Israel could "exist according to the scale, spirit and quality she now embodies." op. cit. Cooley, p. 162

Cooley, John K. Green March, Black September. London: Frank Cass, 1973-- p. 160

[John on 15.04.04 at 17:34]

"The provocations on the Golan were overwhelmingly Israeli."

This has been the party line of writers like Hirst et al, and Soviet propagandists who were interested in promoting Arab unity. Given the Syrian proclivity to bombard Galileans when they *weren't* farming, or trespassing on Arab land, and their funding of fedayeen raiders operating on the permeable border, I treat some accusations of unwarranted Israeli aggression with a pound of salt.

"The blockade of the Straits of Tiran was only a partial blockade."

There was *no* blockade in the literal sense of the word. Iranian oil shipments, to the best of my knowledge, continued throughout the crisis. Nasser's new emphasis, however, on *controlling* the Straits was what upset the Israelis. They were very clear on this, and he knew that any attempt (or implied attempt) to blockade the Straits would lead to war. He was impugning Israeli prestige, and he paid for it. God forbid they show a little chauvinism in the defense of their national interests, right?

"The Israelis annihilated its neighbours in a mere 6 days."

What does this mean, exactly? That the (cunning, nasty) Israelis fought well, but the Arabs didn't? That the IDF made a point of immolating vast tracts of Arab land, raping women and killing children all the way? If you're going to accuse me of hyperbolizing things (viewpoints and events, actually), at least be honest about your own language. After all, no Arab capital came under immediate threat, and most Arabs never even saw an Israeli soldier.

The IDF only "annihilated" the Egyptian army: the Jordanians and the Syrians fought the Israelis tooth and nail, and the Syrian army was left largely intact by war’s end.

"Some war for Israeli “survival”."

Indeed, in retrospect, the Israeli success appears like more of a rout than a desperate battle for existence. Since you discount my "anecdotal evidence" of genuine Israeli fears during the crisis, however, this point is not worth arguing.

"All that was missing was the accompaniment of a mournful violin."

Make it a minor key, throw in some burly brownshirts, and you’re gold in my books.

"(WARNING: War hysteria can be dangerous to your mental health.)"

I've said this to ingrates who claim that Palestinians are being decimated in the streets by mobs of bloodthirsty IDF conscripts. Comparing their sentiments to, say, those of ordinary Jews on June 4, 1967, is a bit of a reach.

"And the thrust of your question about the “probable” behaviour of Palestinians towards Israelis dawned on me after the Hama non-sequitur."

It was an allusion to a historical disaster, not a non-sequitur. The part about Jenin was an inference, and not one drawn out of thin air. Besides, you never answered my question: if the shoe was on the other foot, if the Palestinians were occupying Jewish land and could cement that occupation with the most sophisticated military in the region, how would they treat their Jewish “troublemakers?”

"What you are really saying is “You can’t have your property back because you are Arabs.”, a principle better known by its corollary, The Law of Return."

No, that is not what I said at all. What I said had nothing to do with the *Right* of Return (speaking of non-sequiturs), as it is typically described, which Palestinians have so recently been cheated out of, even if the expectation of moving five million plus Jews out of their old olive groves was somewhat unrealistic to begin with.

What I *asked* is written above.

“Lastly, it’s a complete waste of time trying to define the beliefs of “expansionist Zionists” who don’t believe in “expansion” (or even Zionism it seems).”

I disagree. Your definition of Zionism as inherently expansionist (and colonialist, and doubtless whatever other negative –ists can be thrown in there) is, in my humble opinion, inaccurate: largely because a fair number of self-proclaimed “Zionists” have a very different, and conciliatory, interpretation of Israel, Palestine, and their ideological foundations.

“Perhaps we should leave the final words to some of those who were in a position to assess the Arab threat back in 1967.”

Sure, while you’re at it, why not throw in the inflammatory statements of Arab leaders and the offensive-minded military operations of their generals? For his part, Anwar Sadat said Nasser was “carried away by his own impetuosity.” That’s a sharp assessment of his mentality, even if it *was* by Nasser’s successor.

Anyway, thanks for the cut and paste: http://members.fortunecity.com/911/palestine/some-wars.htm

Now, do you really expect me to take these “damning” quotes seriously after seeing them posted as “the Great Jewish Land Grab?” Okay, for the sake of argument, I’ll swing with that bat:

“I do not believe that Nasser wanted war.”

Nasser didn’t want a war as disastrous as the one he got, that’s for sure. Rather, he wanted a conflict where the Israelis struck first-suffice to say, he did not appreciate the significance of a timely air raid.

Rabin was evidently quite unaware of the reports Israeli intelligence received that suggested a strike on Dimona, and other strategic targets in the Negev. In saying this, I think he is also unaware of the relationship between politically-minded Nasser, who did not want to risk an Arab-made war, and offensively-minded Amer, who did not particularly care for such considerations.

He is also ignoring the spanking-new mutual defense pacts signed between the UAR and other Arab states. Finally, many years after this interview, Rabin later claimed in a public speech that the Third Arab-Israeli War was “forced” upon Israel.

Sometimes you feel like a nut, sometimes you don’t. Maybe he was getting old, I don’t know.

" To pretend that the Egyptian forces concentrated on our borders were capable of threatening Israel's existence does not only insult the intelligence of any person capable of analyzing this kind of situation, but is primarily an insult to the Israeli army."

Matty Peled is insulting our intelligence by ignoring the power of Israel’s first strike and failing to appreciate their Arab counterparts. The IAF’s decisive role could have just as easily been played by the massive Egyptian air force. Egyptian aerial hegemony, which even a klutz like Amer could appreciate, would make two measly, understrength, poorly trained divisions (plus the thousands that were being moved over from Yemen in the meantime and the troops that arrived after the war was over) worth their weight in gold.

“There was never a danger of extermination. This hypothesis had never been considered in any serious meeting."

For the most part, I agree with this. The fact is, there was a tremendous amount of war hysteria (see my “anecdotes”) floating around in Israel proper, and some of Israel’s leaders encouraged this sentiment. The civil leadership was terrified of a war with the Arab nations. The military was not: in fact, at the time, Ariel Sharon maintained that Israel was in a *better* position in 1967 than she was with Britain and France alongside her in 1956.

To insinuate that the Egyptian forces in the Sinai and their allies elsewhere posed no threat whatsoever, however, is simply ridiculous. To win, and win decisively, would save Israeli lives, and that little tidbit is very important when analyzing the way the IDF fights.

"We were not threatened with genocide on the eve of the six-day war, and we had never thought of such a possibility."

Despite the venomous anti-Semitic propaganda and threats published in various Arab capitals during and immediately after the war, I agree with this statement as well. Besides, even if the Arab forces were intent on genocide, the UN (and the US) would not have allowed it to happen.

"There was no danger of annihilation. Israeli headquarters never believed in this danger."
General Chaim Herzog, Commanding General and first Military Governor, Israeli Occupied West Bank, Ma'ariv, 4 April 1972

"In June 1967, we again had a choice. The Egyptian Army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him."

Trust Begin to come up with a no-brainer like this. No offense, but this isn’t worth a second glance.

Air Force Commander Gen. Ezer Weizmann stated there was "no threat of destruction" but attack was justified so Israel could "exist according to the scale, spirit and quality she now embodies." op. cit. Cooley, p. 162

So Ezer, that slimy, ambitious, selfish little man… was really just a repressed Zionist trying to get his land grab on? Sure, and Netanya being a stone’s throw away from the coast had nothing to do with the ferocity of the Israeli response to the Jordanian offensive.

Come off it. Israel’s occupation of the West Bank-the most significant plot of land for so-called “religious” Zionists-would probably not have happened had the Jordanians and their allies (under Egyptian command) not started shelling Jerusalem and advancing to the surrounding hills.

It makes me wonder whether Weizmann knew of the proposal to King Hussein that guaranteed Israeli non-involvement with Jordan as long as the Jordanians only launched a token artillery barrage for the Arab “cause.”

Cheers,
John

[Lizardfish on 15.04.04 at 18:44]

TB just left on a private jet. We saw him off at government house. I was interviewed by ZBM, the Sun, the Gazette, and flimed by VSB.... they all left though as Blair was late coming out. We stood in the rain from 2:15 till 5:30pm. I even yelled at AS as he came out!!!!!! Didn't even bother looking at number plate "GP01"... as was too intent on making sure we did not miss Blair... DOH! If anyone sees me on ZBM screaming at AS's car, you know why.... so many important looking cars kept coming out.... anyway finally everyone poured out with Governor in tow and police escorts. By which time, the press had left, but I still managed to tell Blair that Terry Jones could do a better job than him!

Look out for pictures in the papers tmrw, and on the news tonight. :-) I was wearing my activist tea cosy hat just for the occassion! ;-)

Take that TB!!

L.

[njegos on 15.04.04 at 21:53]

"Now, do you really expect me to take these “damning” quotes seriously after seeing them posted as “the Great Jewish Land Grab?”"

Of course I didn't John. But it sure beats me why you feel compelled to address them in such depth. Their meaning strikes me as pretty obvious; the 1967 war was not a "war of survival" which is what I said in the 1st place. Seems that we've wasted alot of time.

Anyway, you know my views. Too bad that you cannot bring yourself to express any sympathy for the plight of the Palestinians. The echo of raw power, however, is positively deafening.

Night, night.

[BDA JOE on 15.04.04 at 21:54]

Bryan, you're statements about how colonialism is a part of Britain's past and not it's present, were somewhat true. However, to be synonymous with something usually means that you are often thought of when the other is mentioned (or usually vise-versa), which is certainly the case with Britain and colonialism. All I meant by making the assosiation between the two is that very often people, especially those who's countries or ancesstors have been effected by British colonialism have a hard time getting rid of the natural connection between Britain and 'evil colonialism'. However, that was not really the point of my post. What I wanted to debate was the actions of our 'democraticaly elected' premeir.

He who is so determined to do what is 'right for Bermuda', would rather openly contradict his stated policy to get as many photo-ops with this visiting celebrity. I don't like it.

[njegos on 15.04.04 at 21:56]

Bravo Lisa!

[John on 15.04.04 at 22:50]

"Their meaning strikes me as pretty obvious; the 1967 war was not a "war of survival" which is what I said in the 1st place."

Njegos, these quotes (some taken out of context, by the way) all implicitly exonerate Nasser for his outrageous behaviour and depict the Israeli military leadership as obsessed with stealing Arab land and beating on the weak. How is this accurate? Anyway, you also said:

"The provocations on the Golan were overwhelmingly Israeli.
The blockade of the Straits of Tiran was only a partial blockade.
The Israelis annihilated its neighbours in a mere 6 days."

That's a striking add-on. And I think you're being dishonest by insinuating, through the quotes above, that Israel was not only unjustified in declaring war on her neighbours, but responsible (a la "provocations on the Golan") for the conflict itself.

"Too bad that you cannot bring yourself to express any sympathy for the plight of the Palestinians."

What? This is another "non-sequitur," but here goes: I care enough about the plight of the Palestinians to know there is a difference between the popular "Right" of Return and a nonexistent "Law" of Return. I care enough about the Palestinians to acknowledge that fifty years of rejectionism, terrorism, and unrealistic demands will make things *worse,* not better, for the people in refugee camps. I care enough to recognize that Arabs, and not just Israelis, have done terrible things to the Palestinians over the decades.

Blithely throwing about nonsense like "750,000 evictions" is not only unsympathetic, it is insulting.

Cheers,
John

[Bryant Trew on 16.04.04 at 07:22]

BDA JOE,

If Alex Scott doesn't hold Tony Blair responsible for Britain's legacy of colonialism, then there is no contradiction to want photo-ops. At least in my eyes...

[Lizardfish on 16.04.04 at 10:59]

Most of the PLP members in the photo blatantly oppose the war in Iraq. They did not have to come and stand next to Toady... independance/ colonilaism ties to the man himself or not.

The photo made me want to vomit.

L.

[Tiger Bay on 16.04.04 at 11:01]

Yawn.

While your sentiments are noble, I wish you would focus on the many environmental and social issues here at home, where your voice and activism actually can have an impact.

Yelling at Tony Blair on vacation is just so cute.

[Lizardfish on 16.04.04 at 12:20]

WHAT??????????????? I ignored your irrational comments about class before but this has really got me going.

I am devoted to local issues here in Bermuda!

The TB protest took 2 afternoons of my time for an issue I feel is huge, although far from our shores.

You have no idea what I spend the the rest of my time doing NO FRIGGIN IDEA!!!

We got a huge amount of press coverage in the UK and it really meant something that even on a little island TB is still getting some shi* for Iraq. I'm glad you think it's cute, but they quoted me in the Times in the UK and mentioned the protest in many other UK newpapers and online news sites. Like it or not, a small number of people can have an impact on a huge issue like Iraq. If you don't stand up and say you are outraged then you might as well go and shake his hand and congratulate the man on this war.

Despite the fact that I think local issues are important and I care about Bermuda deeply I think that thousands of civilians dying in Iraq is very worthy of a protest when a war criminal arrives for a holiday on the island in which I live.

Many local issues would not be affected at all by a protest. I wanted to raise awareness about the war in Iraq and get Blair some bad press. It would not make any sense to do the same for most important local issues here, like the housing crisis and the gang violence. There is not one person or group who you can blame.

If you are interested to see what kind of environmental issues I am devoted to locally you should check out www.envirotalk.org

I could not think of a place where my time was better spent yesterday in the rain.

Many local issues are going to take a lot more effort to deal with, and when I have the time I will also be devoted to helping solve some of these problems, but right now in addition to writing a thesis on the critically endangered skink I volunteer most of my spare time to help organise and manage the environmental youth conference comming up, assisting with the farmers market and encouraging the support of local agriculture, doing talks at schools on my work and managing an environmental website forum for Bermuda (and global issues). I'm not f-ing perfect but I am doing my best for Bermuda and the planet!!!!!

So what are you doing that gives you the right to point the finger at me??

Don't tell me I had no place protesting against Blair for a few hours. It was probably the easiest thing I have ever done that's created a huge impact in the news locally and internationally.

Damn it, I shouldn't have wasted my time writing this. I'm way too easy to wind up.

Grrrr.

L.

[njegos on 16.04.04 at 14:18]

John:

"I care enough about the plight of the Palestinians to know there is a difference between the popular "Right" of Return and a nonexistent "Law" of Return."

More on that "non-existent" Law of Return:

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/int16.htm

Strange that you cannot see a connection between this and forbidding millions of Palestinians to return to their homes. That is EXACTLY your depth of concern for the Palestinians.

And even my pro-Likud Israeli friends admit that Israel kicked 750,000 Palestinians out of their homes after the Partition Plan collapsed.

Grab the final word for all I care.

[John on 16.04.04 at 15:43]

Njegos:

My apologies. Evidently we crossed wires at "return." I was referring to the Palestinian Right of Return, which is not set in stone("law") by any means, and *not* the Jewish Law of Return, which was apparently what you were talking about.

"Strange that you cannot see a connection between this and forbidding millions of Palestinians to return to their homes."

Ignoring the charge of bigotry buried in the rest of this post...

I do. It is intolerable from a Palestinian standpoint. It has even affected me: I am not allowed citizenship in Israel or the occupied territories; several Jewish friends can simply go there and become protected people overnight.

Of course, telling five million Jews plus change to make room for three million plus Palestinians is ridiculous. It will not happen. Some one million Jews are also refugees from Arab lands: should the ones that wish to return (and there are a few, in fact) be resettled too?

"And even my pro-Likud Israeli friends admit that Israel kicked 750,000 Palestinians out of their homes after the Partition Plan collapsed."

No offense to your friends, but they might be uninformed about how Israel and the Arabs went about the Palestinian Question, especially in times of war (they did vote Likud, after all).

Do they know that Bedu soldiers evicted Palestinians at gunpoint? Do they have a clue that in some areas, like Haifa, the Jewish defense committees requested that the Arab populace stay? Do they know that Palestinian civilians were used as human shields by Arab fighters? Do they know that groups of Palestinians fleeing to the West Bank were shot at by Jordanian troops? Do they understand that Palestinian factionalism during the war encouraged thousands to leave their homes, for fear of their own neighbours?

"Historians" have been passing around that number for years, and simply chalking up the massive refugee train to Jewish aggression. That certainly explains part, maybe even most of it: but burying your head in the sand and asking Israel to shoulder all the blame for this catastrophe is too much.

Cheers,
John ("the last word," sic)