NewsReal

UK Support for the Israeli Government

2008-06-06T04:04:00.000-07:00

This is a copy of a letter I sent to Nick Clegg, who is my MP and also the leader of the Liberal Democrat party.

30th May 2008

Nick Clegg MP
House of Commons
London
SW1A 0AA

UK Support for the Israeli Government

Dear Mr Clegg,

I am writing to urge you to take action on this issue. I am sure you are aware of the terrible and ever worsening plight of the Palestinians under the ongoing Israeli occupation of their land, and in particular of those Palestinians in the Gaza region. The blockading of Gaza and the attacks upon it by Israeli forces have been widely condemned. Amnesty International has criticized Israeli attacks on Gaza for their “reckless disregard for human life”; Human Rights Watch have described the blockade as “collective punishment of Gaza's civilian population in violation of international humanitarian law”; Jimmy Carter describes the blockade as “one of the greatest human rights crimes on Earth”; Desmond Tutu calls it an “abomination” and criticizes international “silence and complicity” over it.

Of course one can also criticize Palestinian attacks on Israelis, but these pale into insignificance in comparison with the actions of the Israeli government. One only has to compare the toll of deaths and injuries on either side and the daily suffering endured by the Palestinians versus the freedoms and protection afforded Israeli citizens to see this. We should also note the conclusions of the UN's report by John Dugard that “While Palestinian terrorist acts are to be deplored, they must be understood as being a painful but inevitable consequence of colonialism, apartheid or occupation” and that “...every effort should be made to bring the occupation to a speedy end. Until this is done, peace cannot be expected, and violence will continue.”

Despite all this, whilst our government may speak a few words against some Israeli actions, in all its deeds it continues to support the Israeli government. In particular it continues to license the sales of arms and military hardware to the Israeli government to the tune of tens of millions of pounds every year. In this very real sense our government is facilitating these ongoing crimes against humanity.

I therefore urge you to apply all the pressure you can to the government to immediately halt all sales of military related goods to Israel. I also urge you to make this a central policy of your party. I will not vote for any party which will not take a stand against supplying military goods to oppressive regimes such as this.

Yours sincerely,

Jonathan Le Vallois

Engineers and the Arms Industry

2008-06-06T03:58:00.000-07:00

This is a copy of an e-mail I sent to Professional Engineering magazine, the journal of the Institute of Mechanical Engineers.

Dear Sir/Madam,

I find it alarming that of all the many articles about military hardware that this journal carries, I can not recall a single one that has questioned the need for producing such hardware. Surely as engineers we should be questioning the need for the more and “better” weapons many of us are asked to design and build. After all, contrary to what they and a supine media would have us believe, our government has a long history of putting them to ill use. For instance the Iraqis are now far worse off than they were under Saddam Hussein and our wars and sanctions against Iraq have killed far more of its citizens than he ever did. Before we waded in they at least had a modern infrastructure, education and health care, now all that has been destroyed. Afghanistan too is, incredibly, worse off even than it was under the Taliban, apart possibly from Kabul. In the first few days of bombing Afghanistan more civilians were killed than died in the Twin Towers, thousands more have died since; the opium business has grown by at least 20 times; women who were oppressed before now set fire to themselves in a bid to escape their lives; the list goes on. In Yugoslavia too our role was not as our government would have us believe. For instance it is reckoned that NATO bombing in 1999 may have killed more civilians than Serb forces did and certainly led to more people fleeing as refugees. Even US and UK generals didn't recommend that bombing, but they were overruled.

Looking back through our history you can see a stream of military interventions, none of which were unavoidable and none of which did the countries concerned any good; combined with an ongoing policy of supplying arms to chosen dictators. And yet when the government says we need more weapons, more ships, more aircraft, we the engineers simply say “yes boss” and bury ourselves in the technical challenge.

The Nuremberg trials established that it was no defence for a soldier to plead that he was only following orders when he committed crimes and hence that it is a soldier's right and duty to question and refuse such orders. Should we not also be questioning and refusing instructions to build more military hardware, given such a history of destruction and suffering? And shouldn't this institution be taking the lead in asking such questions? Oppenheimer was horrified by what he unleashed and worked hard to try and put that genie back in the bottle, but to no avail. How many of us are repeating his mistakes in our own ways, great or small?

Yours faithfully,

Jonathan Le Vallois
(MIMechE)

Meeting the People in Cuba

2008-04-22T04:54:00.000-07:00

(Originally published on ZNet on 18th April 2008)

I have just returned from Cuba which I visited with a Traidcraft "Meet the People" tour. Traidcraft being a fairtrade organisation in the UK and a founding member of the Fairtrade Foundation. We visited various parts of the island, meeting farmers, teachers, doctors and many other ordinary Cubans. I would like to share some of what we learned.

Politics

The first thing to note is that Cuba is in no sense a dictatorship. True it only has one political party, the Communist Party, but it's role is not the same as the political parties we are familiar with.

The Communist Party takes no part in the electoral process. The Cuban people vote for representatives from their communities. These are ordinary people not politicians and they are not allowed to campaign. They are voted for on the basis that they are known and trusted. The chances are that if a voter doesn't personally know the person they are voting for they know someone who does. There are currently 614 of these voted representatives.

It is these representatives who vote in the president, vice presidents and ministers. So how come they voted in the same president for so many years? It's simply because most of them believe in him. They recognise that he has led them through many difficult years and they don't think anyone else could do it better, even if they don't like all the rules they live under. They remember what a dictatorship is like. They lived under Batista, that friend of the US who made Cuba a playground for the rich and corrupt and had protestors gunned down in the streets. That is what the revolution has rescued them from and they are glad of it. The current political system bears no resemblance to a dictatorship. The fact that over 90% of the population voted in the last elections amply demonstrates their belief in it.

So where does the Communist Party fit in? They are involved in discussing policies and legislation. This we may consider as less than ideal since they are an unelected body. But let us not forget that our own governments (in the US and UK at least) are heavily influenced by unelected bodies. These are the lobbyists, who are principally representatives of corporations. Cuba has the Communist Party, we have the Capitalist Party. At least Cuba is honest about it.

Community

Most of life in Cuba is community based. Education, healthcare, work as much as is possible and just about anything else you can think of. Everybody knows their neighbours and they support each other. It is principally the strength of community which enabled them to survive the hard years after the collapse of the Soviet Union. They call those years the "special period". In fact the "special period" probably further strengthened the community spirit because people had to support each other and because travel became so much harder.

Farming

Farming has changed a lot since the Soviet Union collapsed. Until then Cuba had gained 80% of its income from selling sugar to the Soviet block at a higher price than that of the global market. When the Soviet Union collapsed this market disappeared overnight. This coupled with a tightening of the USA's blockade against Cuba affected all aspects of life in Cuba, but perhaps the biggest changes occured in farming. It is the first few years of this period that are referred to as the "special period", but the affects are still felt now as Cuba is still isolated from much of the global market by the US blockade. Unable to import much food Cuba now had to grow its own or starve to death. A food rationing system was started to ensure everyone would survive. (The rationing system still operates, but now there is enough food available to supplement it by buying extra). Half the sugar mills were closed and the land turned to growing crops. Unfortunately much of the soil which now had to grow food crops had been damaged by the monoculture of growing sugar cane and by the use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides. Such chemicals were no longer available, nor was there fuel for tractors, other machinery, or even for transport. Thus Cuba had to rebuild the soil, develop organic, non mechanised farming and increase farming near to population centres.

Now you see oxen being used to plough the land more often than tractors. Not only does this mean no fuel is needed, but unlike tractors, oxen don't compress the soil. The soil is being rebuilt using worm humus, which is made using vegetable matter and manure. Go to almost any farm and the farmer will proudly show you his worms! Mixed crops are planted to keep pests to a minimum without the use of pesticides. And many small farms have been created in and around cities. Cuban's are now very conscious of working with nature rather than against it. A few still use chemicals, most notably in the growth of tobacco, but those that have switched to organic farming wouldn't go back to using chemicals even if they could and they prefer their oxen to tractors. They point out that they are 50 years ahead of us, because when the oil runs out this is how we'll have to learn to farm.

At the start of every year each farm agrees with the state how much it will produce and the state undertakes to buy it all. There is no coercion here for the farmers to produce more than they can. And if for reasons such as blight or hurricane damage they fail to produce what they agreed to, the state will pay them anyway.

About half the farms are cooperatives where the farmers share the earnings of the farm. The rest are state owned farms where the workers are waged staff. In both cases earnings are high, farming being one of the best paid jobs in Cuba. Other benefits are good too, including 50-60% pay when sick and like the rest of the country, retirement at age 55 years for women and 60 years for men. After you retire you can continue to work if you wish, in which case you will receive your pension and your pay.

Private Enterprise

There is very little private enterprise as such. As already noted farms sell everything to the state. The state controls nearly all shops, which is why the prices are pretty much the same everywhere. The exceptions are some private cafes and people who rent out rooms to tourists. There are also some joint ventures between foreign companies and the state, with the state always owning the controlling share.

Only private businesses are taxed. No one else is taxed since the government gets its revenue from buying and selling everything. But the government is not unaccountable in this. Farmers for instance have their own representatives who check that what they are paid for their goods is fair. No one we spoke to thought the government was wasting the country's money.

Tourism

Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, Cuba's primary source of foreign income has been tourism. About 2 million tourists visit Cuba each year. The largest amount come form Canada and most of the rest from Europe.

Although Cuba gains a lot of foreign income this way it does have a downside. This is that Cubans working in the tourist industry can make much more money than those with no access to tourist money. For instance a teacher might earn, say 350 Cuban Pesos a month, which is a good wage, but a cleaner in a hotel might get tipped 1 or 2 Convertable Pesos by every departing guest whose room she cleans. A Convertible Pesos is worth 24 Cuban Pesos, so it is possible to earn more as a hotel cleaner than a teacher. This kind of disparity gives rise to some discontent and is causing some people to leave vital professions like teaching to work in the tourist industry.

Travel

Most people can't afford cars or the fuel to put in them. And during the special period there was virtually no fuel available. Walking, bicycles, horses and hitch hiking became the norm and open trucks are used as buses. This continues, although there are a few new cars about now. At any junction you will see groups of people waiting for a ride to work, to school, to wherever. All this is perfectly safe. Unprovoked violence is unheard of in Cuba. Petty theft, born of poverty, is about the only crime we heard tell of. A woman can hitch hike alone, day or night in perfect safety.

Education

In Cuba all education is free for everyone. The only obligation this entails is that if you go through degree level education you then have to spend 18 months doing what is called social service. This means being sent somewhere that needs the skills you have learned. For this you are paid an amount somewhat above the minimum wage. Everyone we spoke to thought this a fair system and many choose to remain where they were sent permanently.

The alternative to studying for a degree is vocational training. This too is free.

Most education is locally based so that pupils don't have to travel far, especially up to high school level, but there are boarding schools for cases where the travel is too lengthy. Don't forget that most people don't have cars so when I say lengthy I'm talking about time not distance.

Class sizes kept low. 1 teacher to 20 pupils at junior level and 1 teacher to 15 pupils at high school level. But it can be even lower than that. We encountered one school in a less accessible area which had only 2 pupils, but still boasted four part time teachers (they taught eleswhere as well), a PC, TV and video, powered by solar panels since the area was too remote for mains power.

Health Care

This too is community based as much as possible and free, except for a small charge for medication received when not in hospital.

Health care is primarily preventative. It is much cheaper to prevent illness than to cure it. There is an average of 1 doctor and nurse team for every 120 families. This low number of patients means they visit them and keep track of any conditions they may have. They also visit well members of the community at least once a year, just to make sure they really are well. Anything they can't deal with is of course referred to a hospital or one of the specialists who visits the community regularly.

If you should need to go to hospital this too is free and of a very high standard.

All this combines to give Cuba very good health statistics, including a high life expectancy and low child mortality. Better in fact than most Western nations.

Housing

This is a problem in Cuba. 80% of homes are privately owned, but there simply aren't enough of them. It is common for 2 or 3 generations to live together in one small home, with only one room for each family unit. In the countryside you can build your own home on your land. (One of the first acts of the revolutionary government was to give land to those who worked it). In cities and towns it's not so easy. The most common way to move house is to swap with someone else. A chain of swaps can be set up, but this can take a months or years to complete. Houses can only be bought and sold through the government and you will wait a long time for a suitable house to become available by this method.

Few new houses are being built by the government because at the moment the primary concerns remain making sure there is enough food, education and healthcare.

Other Issues

There are other, lesser issues which are gradually being addressed. You will have heard that only recently were laws changed to allow Cubans to stay in hotels; to register their own mobiles and to buy PCs. Amongst the remaining issues are that you still can't get satellite TV, except on the black market and it takes a long time to get foreign travel authorised.

But these are minor issues compared with the progress they have made since the revolution began: free education and healthcare for everyone; owning your own land; having food to eat; strong and supportive communities and not being shot in the street for expressing discontent. Generally speaking this is the happiest and friendliest nation I have ever visited.

Fleeing the Truth

2008-04-22T04:52:00.000-07:00

(Originally published on ZNet on 20th March 2008)

I don't usually comment on US elections, but it has been interesting, if a little sickening, to observe the rapidity with which Obama attempts to distance himself from the observations of the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Apparently any suggestion that US foreign policy might have something to do with 9/11or that the bible doesn't condone the US government slaughtering whoever it wants, is not vote worthy. In short the truth is not vote worthy.

To do the people of the US justice I'd like to think that if they realised that this were the truth it might be vote worthy, but most apparently do not. And of those that do rather less can rouse themselves sufficiently to do anything about it. This is, I believe, is also true of many other Western nations, where our governments and media unceasingly tell us what matters, what we should concern ourselves with and what we should devote our time to. The truth seldom gets look in because the truth does not serve the purposes of the rich and powerful. And that, I presume, is the real problem for Obama and the other electorally ambitious. If they abandon the tenets of the rich and powerful they'll be dropped like stones and buried.

These rich and powerful people who uphold our governments are the only ones who benefit from the policies of exploitation backed by war. They gain more wealth and more power. Quite why they want more wealth and power, and quite what good they think it will do them when they come face to face with God, is beyond me.

Wilfully Blind to Wrongdoing

2007-12-12T04:33:00.000-08:00

I recently had a very revealing e-mail exchange with a senior researcher at the Simon Wiesenthal Center. I was prompted to contact the centre after reading that they were making a last ditch attempt to find Nazi war criminals in South America. I wondered if this organisation, which has expended so much effort in pursuing these criminals, has any stance on the ongoing conflict between the Israeli government and the Palestinians. According to its mission statement the centre is

"...dedicated to repairing the world one step at a time. The Center’s multifaceted mission generates changes through the Snider Social Action Institute and education by confronting antisemitism, hate and terrorism, promoting human rights and dignity, standing with Israel, defending the safety of Jews worldwide, and teaching the lessons of the Holocaust for future generations..."

Would the "standing with Israel" part preclude them from criticising Israeli government actions against the Palestinians which have been severely criticized by others. For instance Nelson Mandela and other South African leaders have criticised the system in Israel as being apartheid; Ronnie Kasrils, himself a jew, described it as "much worse than apartheid" and German Bishops have equated the actions of the Israeli government to those of the Nazis. How then would the Simon Wiesenthal Center view the situation?

I began by simply asking this question, via the e-mail link on their web site, pointing out that some had heavily criticised Israeli actions in this regard. I was pleasantly surprised to get a rapid response from someone who transpired to be a senior researcher at the centre. Sadly the ongoing exchange revealed an outlook every bit as bigoted as I had feared.

The most significant revelations of this person's thinking were:

The idea that acquiring territory by military action was sometimes acceptable (referring to the Six Day War of 1967)
A refusal to acknowledge any wrongdoing by the Israeli government or Israeli forces despite reports [1] [2] [3] and even the testimony of Israeli soldiers.
The ready acceptance of extreme characterisations of Palestinian groups. For instance the statement that Hamas is "sworn to the annihilation of Israel".
A refusal to entertain the idea of negotiating with Hamas despite the stated willingness of Hamas enter into peace talks.
The labelling of any criticism of Israeli actions as anti-semitic.

I'm no fan of Hamas, but they were democratically elected to govern the Palestinians whether we like it or not and are still supported by a large proportion of the Palestinian population. Nor do I agree with their stated aims or expect the Israelis to do so, but that is exactly why negotiation is needed. Both parties will need to compromise their stances to achieve peace, since they are mutually exclusive as they stand.

It seems to me that much of the responsibility for the intransigent stance of the Israeli government and prevalence of views such as those above, rests with Western governments, and by extension with we the Western populace, whose unwavering support of the Israeli government means they feel no pressure to enter meaningful negotiations or obligation to honour international law or any agreements they enter in to. Every time we sell them more military hardware or grant them more loans we endorse their actions. I believe it behoves us to protest against our governments' support of the Israeli government, to dispel the lies told on all sides and to encourage genuine moves towards peace.

The Iraq War is Not a Mistake

2007-04-17T04:57:00.000-07:00

I grow increasingly angry at hearing the Iraq war described by our media as a misadventure or a mistake on the part of the Bush and Blair governments. Allied to this is the cry that the war isn't working. Let us examine what we know of these governments actions and see if we can't arrive at a more logical conclusion.

Starting with the Bush administration:

we have heard that another war in Iraq was planned from the start of Bush's term in office. [1] [2]
we have heard that Bush wanted to attack Iraq straight after 9/11, despite there being no connection between Iraq and the destruction of the Twin Towers. [3] [4] [5]
we know that weapons inspectors operating in Iraq since the first Iraq war had concluded that they were as sure as anyone ever could be that Iraq was disarmed of all weapons of mass destruction [6] [7] [8]. In Febraury 2001Colin Powell even told the Egyptian ambassador that Saddam was no threat to his neighbours. [9]
so we know that the Bush administration lied when it said Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, including Colin Powell's infamous presentation 2 years after that mentioned in the previous point. [10]
we know that the war was decided upon whatever the UN said. [11] [12]
we know that the first Iraq war and the subsequent sanctions had already reduced life for the Iraqi people to a desperate state and had killed hundreds of thousands of people including over 500,000 children.[13] [14]

Similary for Blair's government:

we know from the Downing Street memos that Blair's government sought to deceive the public into believing Iraq was a threat, despite all evidence to the contrary. [15] [16]
we know that British and US forces were already bombing Iraq prior to the declared war. [17]
we know that the government and the majority of MP's voted for the war despite huge opposition from the British public. [18]
we know that when presented with a study showing the death toll as a result of the war was most likely 655,000 or more the Blair government derided the study despite being told by his own advisors that the study was sound and the methods used close to "best practice". [19] [20] [21] [22] [23]

We know that in pursuing this war both US and British forces used depleted uranium [24], which can be classified as a weapon of mass destruction [25] and the use of cluster bombs was also widespread [26]. We know they deliberately destroyed the civilian infrastructure of the country contrary to the rules of the Geneva convention [27] [28]. There are numerous examples of how the Iraqi people are treated as worthless by our armed forces. [29] [30] [31] [32] [33]

Are these actions ones that can lead to the conclusion that the war in Iraq is merely a mistake or misadventure?

No, these actions and the determined continuation of them are surely the pursuance of policy. But why would they pursue such a policy?

Like anyone looking for a motive we only need ask cui bono? Who benefits?

The answer of course is:

all our arms manufacturers and those involved in that vast multi billion dollar industry. [34] [35]
all those construction companies who have been paid so much for rebuilding so little of what we destroyed. [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44]
all those "security" companies, otherwise known as mercenaries. [45] [46] [47] [48]
and of course the oil companies who have made so much money from the leap in oil prices and stand to make so much more when they take unprecidented control of Iraq's oil resources. [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56]

It may seem unthinkable that anyone would be willing to slaughter so many hundreds of thousands of people and ruin the lives of so many more merely for the financial benefit of a few corporations, but that, as far as I can see, is the only conclusion that can be drawn from the facts.

Nor is this an isolated case. Similar analyses can be performed for other interventions: Afghanistan, Yugoslavia, Somalia, Iran, Panama, the list goes on and an entirely consistent picture emerges. Our governments tell us they are taking action in order to bring democracy and freedom or formerly to prevent communist takeovers; our media repeats the mantra almost entirely without questioning it; our governments pour our taxes into funding the onslaught; terrible suffering ensues; various corporations with connections to government figures make huge profits and we sit by and let it happen.

How Can an Entire System of Government be Changed?

2007-03-20T05:30:00.000-07:00

For that is what I am convinced is required in both the US and UK. Simply getting rid of Bush or Blair is not sufficient, because they are not the root of the problem. The problem is that our so called democracies are anything but. Our governments do not consult the views of the public about the decisions they make and when we try and tell them our views we are generally ignored. Witness the fact that prior to the UK government sending troops to Iraq, surveys showed that a majority of the British public still favoured a diplomatic solution, despite the incessant propaganda we were fed. Two million people took to the streets to make the point and still the MPs voted for war. We have marched to get them to cancel the debts we have saddled so many poor countries with. We have marched to get them to reform unfair "free trade" rules. The list goes on. We have written innumerable letters and signed innumerable petitions. Our efforts have made little difference. Nor, I believe, should such efforts be required to get a government to listen to its people. Most politicians apparently have no interest in what their public wants or in their welfare or in the welfare of anyone of another nation.

History shows us that it makes no difference which party is in power. Still wars and other policies are pursued which benefit no ordinary people anywhere (as if a war could ever be beneficial). And we know that the opposition MPs voted with the current government to go to war in Iraq and that they just voted to purchase new Trident missiles at enormous cost. At no point were the public consulted. I notice that the US Senate follows the same pattern.

It follows that getting rid of Blair in the UK or Bush in the US will make no difference and voting in the leading opposition party will likewise make no difference. Perhaps one of the minor parties might behave differently, but there is no guarantee of this even if they were to gain power.

Surely what we need is a system of government wherein government policies are required to reflect the views of the public and must not act to the detriment of the public either of this land or of any other land.

But how can we achieve such a vast change? This would require a revolution, but a peaceful one since the ends never justify the means. Indeed I would go further and say that bad means can only lead to bad ends.

What then must we do?

UK Government Support of Israel

2006-11-09T05:35:00.000-08:00

This is a copy of a letter sent to my MP today:

Doubtless you've read and seen reports of the latest Palestinian deaths in Gaza. At least 18 people killed and 40 wounded in the town of Beit Hanoun when Israeli forces shelled their homes as they slept. This brings the total to more than 60 dead in this town alone in the last week. Figures vary slightly but the number of Palestinians killed since the start of July is reported to be about 380, versus 5 Israelis killed. Add to this loss of life the continued economic blockade and the ongoing seizure of Palestinian land. In Gaza, which is effectively under siege, malnutrition is widespread. To any impartial observer this looks like ethnic cleansing. Nelson Mandela has observed that the Israeli government exercises an apartheid regime far worse than South Africa's ever was.

How can our government support that of Israel as it inflicts such suffering? Our government continues to supply military materiel to Israel, it supports the economic sanctions against the Palestinians and offers political support to the Israeli government.

Maybe they would say that the sanctions are justified because the Palestinians voted a terrorist organisation into power, but if by “terrorist” they mean those who use violence to further their political aims, the Israeli government would fall into the same category, most especially as it kills and injures far more people and at least half of those killed are civilians. Also, at the time of the election Hamas had held a ceasefire for 18 months, whilst the Israeli government has held no such ceasefire. Why should the Palestinians be punished for exercising their democratic rights?

Perhaps our government would complain that Hamas refuses to recognise the state of Israel. This too is disingenuous. What Hamas has actually said is that they don't accept Israel in its current form, since it illegally occupies Palestinian land seized in the 1967 war. This is undeniably true and is the subject of one of the many UN resolutions which the Israeli government ignores with impunity.

Whatever argument our government may offer I can see no reason to support the Israeli government which metes out such death and suffering upon innocent people. I would be grateful if you would raise this issue with our government on my behalf.

I've Seen This Play Before

2006-10-17T07:30:00.000-07:00

You may have noticed that over recent weeks and months both Tony Blair and George Bush have come in for an increasing amount of public criticism. This criticism has come mostly from military figures, political figures and the "intelligence community". What is interesting about this is the type of criticism being reported and that it is being reported in the mass media.

The type of criticism is very much of the ilk "the Iraq/Afghanistan/terrorism policy is flawed/needs changing/isn't working". The finger is then usually pointed at Blair or Bush according to whether the UK or US is concerned. The finger pointing may not be done by the person making the criticism, often its the media. These criticisms are in fact quite mild considering that many hold that Bush and Blair should be tried for war crimes and breaches of human rights. Indeed it is hard to see how they would escape conviction on such charges if ever they were brought to trial. So why do we only hear these lesser criticisms?

And why are the mass media now reporting such criticisms? Those of us who take the trouble to look beyond the mass media reporting know that such criticisms and the much more serious charges have been being made for some time. Consider for instance Scott Ritter or John Pilger.

It looks rather as though Blair and Bush are being set up for a fall. Despite the inadequate reporting of the mass media it is no longer possible to convince the public that everything is ok, so a goat or two must be sacrificed. Bush and Blair it would appear have outlived their usefulness. Sadly removing them will change nothing. Do you think a change of leadership or a change of leading party will change our governments' policies? Will we pull out of Iraq or Afghanistan? Will the terror laws be repealed? Will we stop defending the Israeli government's genocidal attacks on the Palestinians? At home, will our health and education services be revived? I think not.

Blair and Bush are not the root of the problem. Removing them is merely a face transplant, a procedure which is far from new in the political arena. They would never have been able to do the things they have if our political systems, our mass media and we ourselves hadn't allowed it. Which is exactly why our mass media are not airing the more serious charges which could be leveled against our leaders. If they did then it would become obvious that our political systems are far from democratic; that the main political parties do not, on the whole, have the best interests of the populace at heart; that the mass media are complicit in this by not seriously questioning their actions and that we share in that guilt by allowing ourselves to be distracted from the suffering of others. It would become obvious that we need more than just a change of Prime Minister or President.

But how can such changes be effected? Well you could start by voting for a party which actually has policies you agree with. Don't be fooled into thinking that those smaller, untried political parties aren't an option. Why aren't they? You know the bigger parties will carry on just as before and that this is not acceptable. It's only they and the mass media that tell you other options can't be considered. I'd rather vote for an untested party who's policies agree with mine that vote for a party whom I know will enact the same heinous policies as before.

The Right to Kill?

2006-08-09T04:46:00.000-07:00

The Israeli government says it is only defending itself. Thus US and UK governments support them in this. It is of course palpable nonsense to say that Israel's current actions against Lebanon and Gaza are self defense. Civilians are being deliberately targeted. Even some Israeli pilots and soldiers are refusing to take part in these actions. This is not self defense this is conquest.

And the leaders of these nations claim to follow God. This too is a palpable lie and one for which they will pay dearly unless they get to some serious repentance some time soon. One only has to read the ten commandments, common to both Christians and Jews, that killing and stealing are not activities that those who follow God should be taking part in. Or how about "love your neighbour as yourself"? Jesus has some stern words for those left in charge of his domain who do not follow God's ways, he says: "What then will the owner of the vineyard do to them? He will come and kill those tenants and give the vineyard to others." Whether you interpret this literally or not, these people are in serious trouble. One can only assume they have no belief in God and are just cynically using his name for their own ends yet again.

New Levels of Malevolence from Israel

2006-06-28T03:58:00.000-07:00

Who now can doubt the malevolence and the intent of the Israeli government? Not content with cutting off the funding of the Palestinians (an act of theft backed by the US and Europe), they have now, in response to the kidnapping of a single soldier, mounted an assault on the Gaza strip. Under cover of shelling tanks have moved in and a power station has been destroyed. No one can call this a proportionate response. It looks like the Israeli government just can't destroy the Palestinians fast enough. So far I hear no voices of condemnation from Western leaders.

Western support of Israel's rejection of the Hamas government of Palestine has given all them all the excuse they need to accelerate the erasure of Palestine. And the Hamas government's crimes? They have an armed wing, which is of course nothing like as devastating as the Israeli army and they decline to recognise Israel in its current form. They point out that much of Israel is built on land seized in the 1967 war. This is undeniably true and also undeniably, the seizing of land by force is illegal under international law. Consequently this seizure was been condemned by the UN long ago. Sadly the reality is that despite this the West backs Israel and seems content to let the Palestinians be extirpated. How can we defend such a stance before God?

2006-05-23T04:42:00.000-07:00

Chagossians Fight On

I found it heartening to see that the British judicial system is still capable of ruling against the actions of the British government. On 11th May the High Court again decided in the favour of the people of the Chagos Islands, ruling that the government had illegally removed them to make way for the US military base on Diego Garcia.

For those unfamiliar with this sordid tale a brief summary is that the British Government forcibly removed the entire population of the islands in the late 1960's and early 1970's, having previously separated the islands from territory of Mauritius which was then a UK colony. The UN was insisting that colonies be granted their independence but the UK already had in mind to allow the US to build a base on the islands. So the Chagos Islands were separated off and named the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT). In 1965 residents of the islands visiting friends and relatives in Mauritius were simply told they could not return home, ever. The remainder of the 2,000 or so residents were first removed from the principle island of Diego Garcia to others in the archipelago, then later from these to Mauritius. The process was completed by 1973. The islanders were now largely resident in the slums of Mauritius, a poor exchange for their beautiful islands. The British Government denied that these people represented an indigenous population, saying they were simply plantation workers. This they maintained until 2003. In fact the islanders had lived there for two generations or more and are British citizens. The US base was also first commissioned in 1973.

The Chagossians have been fighting to return ever since. They won their first High Court case in 2000, winning the right to return to all of the islands except Diego Garcia. The British government declared that it was impracticable for the islanders to return and a subsequent court case in 2003 denied them both compensation and the right to return. Then in 2004 the British government secretly passed a law preventing the residents from returning. It is this law that was overthrown by the most recent High Court decision. Of course they still have to get the UK and US governments, neither of whom show much disposition to follow the rule of law when it doesn't suit them, to actually let them return. I hope and pray that justice and the indomitable spirits of these islanders will prevail.

Oh and in case you were wondering why the US are so keen to keep hold of this base....It is strategically located in the Indian Ocean from where they can reach Africa, the Middle East and Asia. It has been used in the bombing of Iraq and Afghanistan and as a staging post for US intervention in Somalia. The US have also been accused of using it as a location for the interrogation of terrorist suspects.

For more details and references visit the Chagos Islands page of my web site.

2006-05-03T04:42:00.000-07:00

Palestine and Israel

Few would deny that Israel should exist. Few would deny the same for Palestine. Successive Israeli governments have seized the majority of the most fertile land of the Palestinians and Israel now controls nearly all the water in the region. Western media gives the impression that the Palestinians are bent on violent means to secure statehood and yet it is Israel which stands in violation of at least 31 UN Resolutions and has had at least 68 passed against it. And Israeli forces kill many more Palestinians than vice versa. Now the Palestinians have voted in a Hamas government. I can hardly blame them, they had little left to lose. Of course Hamas have been one of the groups behind attacks against Israel in the past, but they have held a one sided ceasefire against Israel for well over a year and the Hamas government has made repeated offers to enter into talks with Israel. As someone recently observed "you make peace with your enemies not your allies". Yet Israel refuses to deal with the Hamas government and the USA and EU have joined them in withholding funds from the Palestinians. Meanwhile Israel continues to build its universally condemned "security barrier", a wall and strip of heavily defended land more imposing than the Berlin wall ever was. This annexes still more Palestinian land and isolates still more Palestinian communities. And having withdrawn from the Gaza strip Israel is now shelling parts of it continually. It seems the Israeli government has no interest in peace, only in crushing the Palestinians utterly and Western governments continue to aid them in this.

2006-04-26T04:28:00.000-07:00

Iraq

Let's have a few facts about our recent involvement in Iraq. You can get more details and references on the Iraq page of my website. Saddam Hussein fell from Western when he was no longer useful to our governments. He wanted to rebuild Iraq's economy after the Iran-Iraq war in which the US government supplied both sides. The US government used Kuwait to reduce the price of oil and helped Kuwait steal some of Iraq's oil. When Saddam told the US government he was thinking about forcibly taking back the territory Kuwait had seized during the Iran-Iraq war, they gave him the green light. (oh and don't forget that Kuwait was created by the British government in 1921 by carving it out of Iraq in order to deny Iraq access to ports on the Persian Gulf). This led to the Gulf War wherein tens of thousand of Iraqis died directly and many more indirectly. Yet when a Shia uprising wanting to overthrow Hussein began the allies denied them aid and allowed Saddam's forces through their lines in order to crush the uprising, killing 30,000.

Then came the sanctions and ongoing bombing leading to the deaths of at least 1 million Iraqis, half of them children.

Not satisfied with this the US and UK governments along with a few others invaded again in 2003 under deliberately false pretenses and against the wishes most of the UK public and a large proportion of the US public. Current estimates of Iraqi dead (direct and indirect) stand at about 250,000. Iraq has been reduced from being one of the most advanced Middle Eastern nations, with the best healthcare, education and infrastructure, to third world status.

Fighting between the US/UK forces and the insurgents is constant. The insurgents are nearly all Iraqis and have just one aim, ending the occupation. Who can blame them? The coalition far from trying to bring peace is bent on fomenting chaos. Now they tell us it's civil war, that the Sunnis and Shia have always hated each other. Don't believe it. You can read a Baghdad resident's view in the 18th March 2006 entry of the Baghdad Burning blog. And here's an article on the so called civil war.
It's long since time we left Iraq and gave them what they need to rebuild their land themselves.

First Post

2006-04-20T03:10:00.000-07:00

A this is my first post and a lot is going on in the world, I shall have to spend some time playing catch up. So let's start with:

Iran
Summary of the facts:
1. Has Iran broken any of the rules of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)? - No
Iran NPT
2. Has Iran fully cooperated with the International Atomic Energy Authority (IAEA) inspections? - Yes
Iran, NPT and IAEA
3. Has any evidence been found that Iran is developing nuclear weapons? - No
Iran Nuclear Activity
4. Has the UN demanded that Iran stop enriching Uranium fuel? - No
Iran Enrichment 1
Iran Enrichment 2
5. Did Iran's president Ahmadinejad say "Israel should be wiped off the map"? - No
Iran and Israel 1
Iran and Israel 2

So what is going on? Why are the US government and others trying to manufacture a pretext to take some kind of action against Iran?

One possible explanation hinges on Iran's decision to open an oil exchange or burse which trades in Euros. The argument goes that the USA boasts an international debt of some $8 trillion, which would under normal circumstances render the dollar pretty worthless. What maintains the value of the dollar is the fact that oil is bought and sold on the international market in dollars. If Iran can successfully run an exchange which trades using Euros the dollar could crash. Hence the US government's desire to at least isolate Iran. Iranian Oil Burse

Is this the true explanation? I'm not sure. But whatever the explanation is we shouldn't sit by and watch another middle eastern country being attacked on false premises. Don't forget that the US and UK governments lied to us about Iraq and the resultant death and destruction is far worse than anything the odious Saddam Hussein ever did.