Skip to main content

Fellow Travellers

I hold no brief for the Israeli attack on Gaza, it strikes me that the conventional wisdom on the incursion: "worse than a crime, it is a blunder" seems about right. The attacks seem to have more to do with the Israeli electoral calender than with any real determination to solve the long term problem of Hamas control over Gaza and the Arab-Israeli conflict.

That being noted, we should also be quite clear that the immediate resumption of rocket attacks from Gaza by Hamas after the end of a six month ceasefire was a quite deliberate provocation- in the full expectation of this Israeli response.

The demonstrations close to the Israeli Embassy in London have reinforced my concerns about the European response to the current violence. That so many of the large crowd were waving Communist Hammer and Sickle flags I find deeply offensive- as offensive as I would find the public display of the Nazi swastika. For me the only difference between National Socialism and Soviet Socialism is that the Soviets killed more people.

Then there was the rioting.

The wanton destruction of a Starbucks coffee shop and the looting of a discount clothing store called "Top Gun" - a shop ironically enough owned by an Iranian- reflected the fact that many in the crowd we the usual anti-capitalist malcontents happy to use the occasion of the Israeli incursion as the excuse for creating disruption. The response of the organisers to what was clearly orchestrated violence by elements of the crowd was frankly outrageous: "It is unfortunate that a small group of people did this. Police underestimated the number of people and tried to barricade them into a small area. They should have been more flexible over access". In other words the looting and criminal damage, the targeting of shops and businesses was... the fault of the Police.

No it wasn't- it was the fault of those who rioted and looted.

I do not think that the Israeli incursion is justified, and adding to the misery of Gaza seems to me likely to reinforce the support for Hamas rather than diminishing it. However Hamas are not an innocent party themselves; as always in the Middle east there is cynical duplicity on both sides.

However those who went to Kensington over the weekend have not bolstered support for the cause of Hamas. If you can judge a cause by its friends, it seems clear that there are some deeply unsavoury figures involved in orchestrating an anti-Israeli movement in the UK and they should be treated with scepticism- if not outright hostility.

Comments

Newmania said…
Interesting post I have never had a strong view about Israel but the constituency for whom it can do no right are so off putting that you end up defending her.
Looking at N Ireland a suppsedly insoluble problem i wonder of the solution is not money . Basically we have flooded NI with such a lot they are too busy picking out holidays to get involved .

Israel might start aggressively being charitable , hopeles with hamas in situ though. I suspect Obamah is hoping the dirty work is done so he has a chance to bring peace to the region
AngloAmerikan said…
The problem seems to be that no one ever seems to call all the wrongdoers to account. Where are the calls for a "war crimes" investigation when Hamas fire 6000 rockets at Israel? Where were the peace demonstrations? Why does the world still give aid to Gaza yet doesn't demand access to the prisoners being held there? So long as there are these double standards then violence is the only option.
Anonymous said…
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

Popular posts from this blog

Waiting for the Barbarians

What are we waiting for, assembled in the forum? The barbarians are due here today. Why isn’t anything going on in the senate? Why are the senators sitting there without legislating? Because the barbarians are coming today. What’s the point of senators making laws now? Once the barbarians are here, they’ll do the legislating. Why did our emperor get up so early, and why is he sitting enthroned at the city’s main gate, in state, wearing the crown? Because the barbarians are coming today and the emperor’s waiting to receive their leader. He’s even got a scroll to give him, loaded with titles, with imposing names. Why have our two consuls and praetors come out today wearing their embroidered, their scarlet togas? Why have they put on bracelets with so many amethysts, rings sparkling with magnificent emeralds? Why are they carrying elegant canes beautifully worked in silver and gold? Because the barbarians are coming today and things like that dazzle the barbarians. Why don’t our distingui...

Liberal Democrats v Conservatives: the battle in the blogosphere

It is probably fair to say that the advent of Nick Clegg, the new leader of the Liberal Democrats, has not been greeted with unalloyed joy by our Conservative opponents. Indeed, it would hardly be wrong to say that the past few weeks has seen some "pretty robust" debate between Conservative and Liberal Democrat bloggers. Even the Queen Mum of blogging, the generally genial Iain Dale seems to have been featuring as many stories as he can to try to show Liberal Democrats in as poor a light as possible. Neither, to be fair, has the traffic been all one way: I have "fisked' Mr. Cameron's rather half-baked proposals on health, and attacked several of the Conservative positions that have emerged from the fog of their policy making process. Most Liberal Democrats have attacked the Conservatives probably with more vigour even than the distrusted, discredited Labour government. So what lies behind this sharper debate, this emerging war in the blogosphere? Partly- in my ...

Lib Dem v. Tory (Round 2)

The Liberal Democrats stand for a distinct political ideology. It is an ideology built around both socially and economically liberal precepts. In as far as our ruling Labour government can be said to have an ideology at all, it coincides with Liberalism only incidentally. Labour stands for pragmatism, and where it does not there is still a core of values that are collectivist and not individual. Sometimes people are prepared to claim the moral high ground for policies of social solidarity and redistribution of wealth. Liberals may argue in favour of equality of opportunity, we can not argue in favour- as Socialists do- of "and equal society". The reason is simple: Socialism does not work. If one places equality above freedom, then eventually we get tyranny. This is why, while we may argue in favour of a more equal society as being a stronger society, the tools that we may use to gain -in our view- socially desirable outcomes must rest upon freedom above all else. As PJ O'...