Blue Obama-lite

So it was delivered without notes. So what?

Why does a feat of technical virtuosity become an election-winner? Why does the manner of delivery become The Story for the media? Isn’t the message more important than the memory?

David Cameron’s strategy is fundamentally and, we can now see, finally and irrevocably flawed. His message, as defiantly and unequivocally re-stated today, is one of radical change. The key question this provokes, however, is change from what?  

The people are indeed desperate for change – but from Gordon Brown and the Labour government and what it stands for. What Cameron defiantly and unequivocally offers is radical change from conservatism to produce an agenda that, far from promising a radical change from Labour, is merely a paler version of Labour.

So when millions of natural conservatives yearn for a radical and unequivocal change from the nihilism and injustice and bullying of political correctness, for a change from the deliberate gerrymandering of the demographic and cultural identity of this country, for a change from the enslavement of frivolous and destructive ideology, for a change from the destruction of the traditional family and the appeasement of radical Islamism, for a change from the empty and mendacious promises of spin, they get instead 'the party of the (failing) NHS' committed to green diversity and with even a smug reference to the women candidates forced upon local constituency parties, a promise to be tough and honest and upfront in cutting spending to tackle the deficit while financing a new army no less of health visitors, a commitment to support marriage in the tax system but also (presumably) unmarried couples in the benefit system, nothing at all about Islamism, nor the destruction of the country’s powers of self government through the EU, nor the deliberate and covert destruction of its demographic and cultural identity except for a glancing reference to cutting immigration.

This was surely the nadir:

The change we need in our society, it’s not some sort of vague change, it’s based on a very clear principle, a very clear value of responsibility.  We think the responsible society is the good society.  We believe in standing up and helping those people who want to do the right thing, not the wrong thing.

I was on a radio phone-in in Kent the other day, and a young man rang up and said that he had got his girlfriend pregnant, and he wanted to move in with her, and together to bring up that child and give it the best start in life, but he had found out that if he moved in with his girlfriend, she would lose her benefits, and be much worse off, so he couldn't do it.  What sort of crazy country sends a signal like that to people who want to do the best for their families?  That’s the change we've got to bring in this party, that’s the value that we aspire to. 

So this is what the Conservative party has really come to: defining responsibility and ‘doing the right thing’ as not marrying the girl whom a young man gets pregnant but merely moving in with her in order that she can continue to live on benefit.

But never fear –

That’s the change we’ve got to bring in this party, that’s the value that we aspire to. 

Yup, it’s the hopey-changey thing we can believe in. Blue Obama-lite.

Email to a friend  |   Permalink   |   Comments (70)

The semi-house trained polemicist

Lord Tebbit’s Telegraph blog just gets better and better. A flavour of today’s:

On Wednesday I heard on the BBC (so it must be true) that it looks as though Our Masters will shortly ban the use of pet passports and compulsory inoculation of dogs from the EU. That, according to the doctors and vets, will make it certain that a particularly foul parasite will infect our dogs, foxes and small wild mammals, and then humans with a potentially fatal liver parasite. That apparently is one of the benefits of membership of the EU. The extraordinary common feature of these two outrages is that whilst they will damage us, in these islands, they will bring no worthwhile benefits to other Europeans.

When will our political leaders come to the rescue of the British people?

Politics? The man is a born writer.

Email to a friend  |   Permalink   |   Comments (11)

A man of rare courage

I have been following for some time the remarkable journey of Mosab Hassan Yousef, about whom I wrote here last year. Yousef, the son of a Hamas leader, renounced not just terrorist violence but his family and his faith to become a Christian and move to California. Since apostasy from Islam carries a death penalty, this in itself was an act of extreme courage. The Telegraph ran an interview with him which set out starkly the extreme risk he was running, along with the principled reasons for his actions:

Mosab Hassan Yousef, 30, said that his decision to abandon his Muslim faith and denounce his father's organisation had exposed his family to persecution in his home town of Ramallah and endangered his own life.

... ‘I’m not afraid of them, especially as I know that I'm doing the right thing, and I don't see them as my enemies,’ he said. ‘I do think about this a lot. But what are they going to do? Are they going to kill me? If they want to kill me, let them do it. I'm not going to stop anyone. It's going to be my freedom.’

... Mr Yousef said that his doubts about Islam and Hamas crystallised when he realised not all Hamas leaders were like his father, a moderate who he describes as ‘open-minded, very humble and honest’. Mr Yousef said that he was appalled by the brutality of the movement, including the suicide bombers seeking glory through jihad. ‘Hamas, they are using civilians' lives, they are using children, they are using the suffering of people every day to achieve their goals. And this is what I hate,’ he said.

But now we learn that his courage and his principles extended far further than this. As Ha’aretz reports, for ten years Yousef worked for the Israeli security service Shin Bet for whom the intelligence he provided saved countless lives from human bomb attacks:

During the second intifada, intelligence Yousef supplied led to the arrests of a number of high-ranking Palestinian figures responsible for planning deadly suicide bombings... Loai [Yousef’s Shin Bet handler] makes no secret of his admiration for his former source. ‘The amazing thing is that none of his actions were done for money,’ he says. ‘He did things he believed in. He wanted to save lives. His grasp of intelligence matters was just as good as ours - the ideas, the insights. One insight of his was worth 1,000 hours of thought by top experts.

Loai recalled one time when the Shin Bet received information that a suicide bomber was going to be picked up at Manara Square in Ramallah and be given an explosives belt. ‘We didn't know his name or what he looked like - only that he was in his 20s and would be wearing a red shirt,’ he said. ‘We sent the Green Prince to the square and with his acute sense, he located the target within minutes. He saw who picked him up, followed the car and made it possible for us to arrest the suicide bomber and the man who was supposed to give him the belt. So another attack was thwarted, though no one knows about it. No one opens Champagne bottles or bursts into song and dance. This was an almost daily thing for the Prince. He displayed courage, had sharp antennae and an ability to cope with danger. We knew he was one of those who in any situation - rain, snow, summer - give their all.'

Even more amazingly:

Yousef was also responsible for thwarting Israel’s plan to assassinate his father.

Not surprisingly, Yousef has trenchant views about Israel releasing the very terrorists he helped put in jail, indeed, in this he shows rather more backbone than many Israelis:

‘I wish I were in Gaza now,’ Yousef said by phone from California, ‘I would put on an army uniform and join Israel's special forces in order to liberate Gilad Shalit. If I were there, I could help. We wasted so many years with investigations and arrests to capture the very terrorists that they now want to release in return for Shalit. That must not be done.’

And on Hamas, Yousef says this:

‘Hamas cannot make peace with the Israelis. That is against what their God tells them. It is impossible to make peace with infidels, only a cease-fire, and no one knows that better than I. The Hamas leadership is responsible for the killing of Palestinians, not Israelis,’ he said. ‘Palestinians! They do not hesitate to massacre people in a mosque or to throw people from the 15th or 17th floor of a building, as they did during the coup in Gaza. The Israelis would never do such things. I tell you with certainty that the Israelis care about the Palestinians far more than the Hamas or Fatah leadership does.’

All those foolish Brits and others who want Hamas brought in from the diplomatic cold, take note.

Israel should surely make this man a roving ambassador, to fight for the truth and justice in the Middle East to which he has so remarkably dedicated – and for which he has endangered -- his life.

Email to a friend  |   Permalink   |   Comments (21)

Dubai: the mystery deepens

Like many of us, Ha’aretz finds the mystery of just who assassinated the Hamas terrorist Mahmoud Mabhouh in Dubai ever more bizarre:

Twenty-six agents, perhaps even 30, sent to assassinate one person? Granted if they could flee the scene by sea, how could one think that Mossad agents would take cover in Iran? I ask myself. Even if they have unprecedented self confidence the likes of which are unknown?

...The police chief, who attracted international coverage, apparently isn't itching to advance the investigation. Last week he was out of the office for personal reasons and now it has been announced that he is on a pilgrimage to Mecca.

It is hard to believe that, if the Mossad intelligence agency carried out the operation, the planners were so irresponsible as to dispatch nearly 30 agents and to expose an entire select operational unit on one assassination operation. This is true even if we assume the planner thought the target should be hit no matter what, and even if hypothetically Mabhouh was on his way to Iran to arrange an arms deal that Israel had seen as changing the balance of power.

Either the new revelations are another salvo in Dubai's psychological warfare or the police investigators are groping in the dark. It is doubtful we will ever know the truth.

But that hasn’t stopped the western media from leaping to conclusions.

Update: Now the Dubai police appear to be accusing Hamas itself of being behind the assassination:

Dubai’s chief of police, Lt. Gen. Dhahi Khalfan Tamim, on Sunday called on Hamas leader Mahmoud al-Zahar to launch an 'internal investigation' into the operation.

Tamim claims that an associate of al-Mabhouh, a high-ranking military leader, leaked information about the Hamas leader’s visit to Dubai and went as far as to refer to the associate as 'the real murderer.'

Further update: Tom Gross protests  further here about the nonsense being written about all this in the media, which have been making wild claims about the assumed Israel connection that are patently untrue.

Email to a friend  |   Permalink   |   Comments (18)

No longer Londonistan but Hamastan

An immensely important and chilling analysis by the authoritative Intelligence and Analysis Information Centre in Tel Aviv highlights the shocking extent to which Britain has become the European epicentre of Hamas activity. Hamas, let us remind ourselves, is the genocidal terrorist Muslim Brotherhood organisation, now in cahoots with Shi’ite Iran, which is pledged to exterminate Israel and kill Jewish people everywhere, along with extinguishing human rights within the Islamic world. Its cause should be absolute anathema to the west, which should be doing everything in its power to stamp it out as the unconscionable threat that it is to life and liberty. Yet for the past decade, Britain has turned itself into the principal focus within Europe for the political, propaganda and legal activities of Hamas. The report states:

...in recent years, Hamas, with Muslim Brotherhood support, has managed to take over a considerable portion of the Palestinian discourse in Britain, at the expense of the Palestinian Authority and Fatah, and has contributed to turning Britain into a center for extensive anti-Israeli activity.

... A broad network of activists and supporters: Initially composed of a core of Hamas operatives who found refuge in Britain in the 1990s, it is aided by radical Islamic elements (most conspicuously by the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas’ parent organization), along with radical leftist organizations hostile to Israel and the West. They make it possible for Hamas and its ideology to infiltrate British politics, media and universities. Hamas has supporters in the British political system affiliated with the radical left such as George Galloway, Ken Livingstone,¹ Jenny Tonge and Jeremy Corbin.²

C. As far as the media are concerned, Britain is one of the most important centers in the world, especially for the Arabic-language press, television and Internet. By exploiting the Arab media operating in London and by issuing its own publications, Hamas gained the capabilities to spread its message to the Muslim communities in the West and its target audiences in the Middle East.

D. As far as legal aspects are concerned, Hamas exploits the British legal system, which enables it to use British courts to bring suits against senior Israeli political and military figures on accusations of so-called “war crimes.” Thus for Hamas (through its network of local supporters), Britain is a convenient arena in which the Goldstone Report can be employed to make political and propaganda capital against Israel, using it as a basis for trying Israeli public figures and delegitimizing the State of Israel.

3. In the extensive anti-Israeli activity undertaken by Hamas in Britain, the movement is careful to hide its identity to keep from running afoul of the British legal system and authorities. For that reason its activists and supporters (including those who were formerly Hamas operatives) are careful not to identify themselves formally as Hamas activists, preferring to appear as supporters of the Palestinian cause, identifying it with Hamas’ ideology and policies.

Examples of this activity include:

An online bi-weekly Hamas magazine is published in London. Called Al-Fateh, it is aimed at children, who a very important Hamas target audience. The magazine does not specifically say it is affiliated with Hamas, but its contents are clearly Hamas-oriented.

... The monthly Filastin al-Muslima, Hamas’ main publication, has been issued in London since 1981. It spreads hate propaganda against Israel and encourages terrorism and terrorists.

... the satellite channel Al-Hiwar. It is an Arabic channel operating from London affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood... It spreads radical Islamic messages and hatred for Israel.

...[Hamas]involvement in (and possibly initiating) legal actions to try senior Israelis in British courts: Dia’a al-Din Madhoun, head of the Hamas’ “documentation committee” (Al-Tawthiq) said that the committee had initiated suits in British courts against former Minister Tsipi Livni when it became known that she planned to visit Britain on December 13, 2009. He said that the committee was working in coordination with a lawyer in Britain named Tayib Ali and a group of other lawyers.⁷ Hamas’ “documentation committee” seems to provide such lawyers with “evidence” (concocted by the de facto Hamas administration) as “legal” foundations for trying Israelis. Tayib Ali is active in forums in Britain working to try so-called Israeli “war criminals,” and to that end, on December 7, 2009 lectured at a seminar to promote trials of “Israeli war criminals” under the sponsorship of a group called The Middle East Monitor.

... in our assessment, Hamas’ involvement in university activity is carried out through radical leftist organizations and radical Islamic elements (such as activists affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood). Their activities include anti-Israeli incitement (through Hamas-supporting speakers who appear at university functions or student activities), initiatives for academic boycotts of Israel and for supporting the de facto Hamas administration in the Gaza Strip. Hints of Hamas involvement can be seen in the London School of Economics’ Student Union decision on November 26, 2009, to twin with the Islamic University in Gaza, Hamas’ political and military stronghold in the Gaza Strip. The Student Union of Queen Mary College followed in their footsteps (December 8, 2008). Both institutions are part of London University.

... Providing money and material support for the de facto Hamas administration in the Gaza Strip through Lifeline convoys: The convoys are dispatched to the Gaza Strip by an organization called Viva Palestina, founded by pro-Hamas British MP George Galloway.

Every MP should be sent a copy of this report. We in Britain are no longer living in Londonistan, it seems, but in Hamastan.

Email to a friend  |   Permalink   |   Comments (46)

Spot the difference

Teresa May writes, a propos David Cameron’s support for Gingerbread’s campaign to ‘challenge prejudice against single parents’:

Conservatives are clear that supporting families must be at the centre of our mission to build a stronger society. That means supporting families of all sizes and types, including Britain’s 1.9 million single parent families.

What is the difference between this and the identically-worded Labour policy that has existed for the past 13 years?

Email to a friend  |   Permalink   |   Comments (19)

Mr Balls's secular Inquisition

A discussion on the Today programme yesterday morning provided a graphic illustration of the astounding intellectual and moral confusion, ignorance and bullying which passes for much of current debate, especially where the issue of religion is concerned. A Liberal rabbi, Jonathan Romain, was claiming that a government amendment to the Children Schools and Families Bill currently going through Parliament  would allow faith schools to opt out of its ‘enlightened’ provision, which makes sex and relationships education compulsory by bringing it within the framework of the statutory National Curriculum.

Rabbi Romain seemed to believe that religious people should be forced to teach only secular and amoral doctrines such as the necessity of contraception, the availability of abortion  or the equivalence of civil union and marriage because these were the only ‘enlightened’ and therefore permitted attitudes. It did not seem to occur to this most illiberal rabbi that it was exceedingly unenlightened to argue that religious folk should not have the right to educate their children about sexual matters in accordance with their own religious laws and values, and that for a government to coerce religious believers into teaching their children amoral values prescribed by the state and which are totally at odds with their own religious beliefs is the hallmark of a repressive society.

If the rabbi’s attitude displayed a terrifying authoritarianism and moral blindness, such disquiet was only reinforced by his opponent and, by definition therefore, the unlikely upholder of religious rights, the Children’s Secretary Ed Balls. For what Balls appeared to be saying was that the amendment did not, as Romain had suggested, exempt faith schools from compulsorily teaching their children about the necessity of contraception, the availability of abortion  or the equivalence of civil union and marriage and so forth – but it did allow them to teach such matters in accordance with their religious precepts.

Considering that the Catholic Church, for example, regards contraception as a sin, abortion as murder and civil union as a perversion of marriage, it is hard to envisage how Catholic schools could teach such matters in accordance with their own religious precepts. Indeed, it is impossible. It would mean, for example, teaching girls that they had a right to abortion and here was the address and phone number of the local abortion clinic, but that abortion was forbidden by Catholic teaching as being akin to murder. What Balls was saying was therefore demonstrably absurd. Surely he couldn’t have meant to propose such an incoherent muddle?

Oh, but he did. The division he made, risible as it is, does indeed constitute the policy. Balls was right that Romain was wrong. Contrary to what Romain was claiming, the amendment does not exempt faith schools from teaching the content of sex education as mandated by the government; it merely permits them to teach this content in the manner of their choosing. The secularist lobby – amongst whom Rabbi Romain must for these purposes be numbered – along with the LibDems have apparently failed to understand this distinction (who can really blame them for doing so, since it makes no sense whatever) and believe wrongly that faith schools have a comprehensive opt-out. Which they do not.

This totally unworkable amendment, which faces two ways at once, was apparently devised with the approval of the liberal Catholic Education Service. Along with Rabbi Romain’s arguments, the broad approval of the Catholic Education Service for this deeply disturbing Bill -- not to mention its unworkable amendment -- demonstrates that the real divisions lie not so much between religions as within religions: between orthodox exponents of the faith who uphold fundamental moral laws and ‘liberals’ who repudiate them.

Indeed, the real significance of this appalling piece of legislation goes far beyond this particular row over this amendment, and far beyond the particular difficulties to be faced by faith schools and the ludicrous hoops through which they are now expected to jump. For it means that in all schools, parents will now find that their children are to be indoctrinated in a set of ‘non-judgmental ‘assumptions about sexual activity that many may find questionable or objectionable – but by law these assumptions may not deviate from the doctrines laid down by the Inquisitors at the Department for Children Schools and Families.

This oppressive and illiberal Bill has no chance of becoming law before the election. Its fate depends therefore on whether the Conservative party will block it during the horse trading that goes on just before an election over which bills will fall and which will make it onto the statute-book. The Tories will be torn between, on the one hand, their deep reluctance to upset the gay rights lobby which regards this measure as yet another important milestone, and on the other the Tories’ natural antipathy to such an unconscionable state grab for power over the right of families to educate their children as they see fit in matters of sexuality. If the Tories do let through this Bill which takes an axe to such a fundamental tenet of liberal society, this will serve to pose even more starkly the question of what if anything the Conservative Party is now for.

Email to a friend  |   Permalink   |   Comments (34)

Richard the lion-hearted

I was privileged last night to hear Colonel Richard Kemp, formerly commander of British forces in Afghanistan and co-ordinator of intelligence in the Cabinet Office, speak forcefully and even passionately at a Zionist Federation dinner about the glowing record of the Israeli Defence Force, the vital strategic importance of Israel to Britain and the way in which Israel was being traduced by the British media, including the BBC.  It is a measure of the significance of such remarks made by an individual with such a background that, to its credit, the BBC website today carries a story about his speech:

A former senior British army officer has said international media including the BBC are being exploited by ‘dark forces’ who want to harm Israel. Col Richard Kemp, who was a commander in Afghanistan, said some international criticism of the Israeli Defence Force (IDF) was motivated by anti-Semitism.

There were some ‘bad ‘soldiers in the IDF, Col Kemp acknowledged. But he added that despite similarities between the IDF and British forces, UK soldiers did not have to deal with the same amount of criticism from the international community.

‘When we go into battle we do not get the same knee-jerk, almost Pavlovian response from many, many elements of the international media and international groups, humanitarian groups and other international groups such as the United Nations which should know better... of utter automatic condemnation. We don't have to put up with that.’

Perhaps the most arresting observation Col Kemp made, however, was that when he was faced with the phenomenon, hitherto unknown to him, of suicide bombing as a tactic used against his men in Afghanistan, he received invaluable advice from the Israeli military on how to combat this threat, advice which formed the basis of official British army guidelines used by soldiers on the ground there. In other words, not only is Britain’s alliance with Israel of critical strategic importance but it has been used to help save the lives of British soldiers.

This is not the first time that the Roman Catholic Col Kemp has spoken out in support of Israel.  During Operation Cast Lead in Gaza, when the IDF was being libelled for wantonly killing Palestinian babies and when violent demonstrations on the streets of London marching behind Hamas banners were baying for Israel’s blood, Kemp calmly told a stunned BBC interviewer that the IDF were going out of their way to save Palestinian lives which Hamas were deliberately using as ‘human shields’, and that the IDF was a world-leader in humane warfare that sought to protect civilian lives as far as was possible. He said much the same inside the very belly of the beast, the UN Human Rights Council, during its show trial of Israel over the Goldstone report.

It takes courage to speak these truths against the current tide of anti-Israel derangement. It is rare indeed to come across a distinguished figure from the very heart of Britain’s defence establishment who is prepared to defend so robustly in public both the Jewish people and the great cause of justice, truth and human rights that Israel represents. Col Kemp is an example of a type that once made Britain great but which is becoming all too rare: the morally decent, emotionally balanced, lion-hearted Englishman who will defend freedom, truth and justice to the death and will never sacrifice the vulnerable to their enemies.

There were accordingly at last night’s dinner many from Britain’s beleaguered and bewildered Jewish community for whom Col Kemp’s remarks brought a lump to their throats. While such men still exist and are able to speak out, all is not lost; it’s game on.

Email to a friend  |   Permalink   |   Comments (88)

Another genocidal murderer wiped out? Britain knows who's really guilty

As self-righteous uproar against Israel rises in Britain over Mossad’s supposed use of stolen British passport identities for the hit-squad which assassinated senior Hamas operative Mahmoud Mabhouh, one or two solitary voices have been trying to introduce a little realism into this latest excuse for frighteningly unhinged Israel-bashing (see the newspaper comment threads, from the moment Dubai published the passport details, for the eruption of a hatred that seizes any and every opportunity to give vent to this bigotry). Tom Gross (who has circulated the picture above of one of Mabhouh's victims, a child murdered by a Hamas missile in Sderot)  has written an excellent resumé of the madness (this article being a notable exception), pointing out that much of the British media in particular has jumped to the conclusion that this was indeed a Mossad operation even though there is a possibility that Israel may have been set up.

Some of this coverage surely amounts to incitement to racial hatred. Douglas Murray draws attention here to the astonishing suggestion broadcast on BBC Radio Four’s PM programme that

up to one million Jews worldwide might be on hand to assist Mossad in executions

a claim which turns every Jew in the diaspora into a potential suspected killer and thus a target for hatred and violence. In my view this claim should be brought to the attention of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

If the Dubai hit was a Mossad operation, it would appear at first blush to have been remarkably incompetent; since the Mossad would obviously have realised that their every move was being recorded on Dubai’s omnipresent security cameras, to have laid a trail to lead straight back to Israel like this appears bafflingly sloppy. And to use the identities of people now living as immigrants in Israel is perplexing.

On the other hand, the Jerusalem Post reports that Israel had very good reason for wanting Mabhouh dead, so much so that it may have factored in the all-too likely repercussions:

A diplomatic fallout with London, caused by the use of forged UK passports, seems a very real possibility if UK authorities officially blame Israeli intelligence for the Dubai slaying. But such a development would surely have been factored into any decision to take Mabhouh out. The diplomatic friction now building up would have been deemed bearable before any go-ahead was given for the killing....According to reports, Mabhouh oversaw the smuggling of Iranian long-range rockets into Gaza, enabling Hamas to threaten the densely populated Gush Dan region, home to more than three million Israelis and the scene of the country’s financial hub.

Only in Britain could the eradication of someone who was planning to murder untold numbers of innocents (Tom Gross reports he was apparently en route to procure Iranian missiles capable of hitting Tel Aviv from Gaza) be deemed worthy of censure by western hypocrites. If, apart from eradicating a terrorist before he could further assist mass murder, the operation was intended to give a message to bad guys everywhere that they will be successfully hunted down, it was a striking success for whoever carried it out – so much so that if Israel was not behind this, it would undoubtedly want its enemies to think that it was. As for the British and Irish passport-holders whose identities were purloined for the hit:

... the olim [immigrants] who found their names on the Dubai police’s wanted list will not encounter great difficulties in clearing their names, since most of the details in the forged documents were changed from the originals. The assassins apparently went to great lengths to ensure that the olim could distance themselves from the incident, changing passport numbers, inserting bogus middle names and altering dates of birth.

... The Gulf state, keen to preserve its name as a neutral financial haven, free from the violent woes that afflict other parts of the Middle East, has gone out of its way to try and embarrass the assassins and those who sent them. Such efforts, presumably, would have been foreseen by the mission’s planners as a possible outcome, and deemed acceptable.

Certainly, Dubai seems to have gone to great lengths to incriminate Israel. Why, after all, did it publish the passport details like this? If it wanted to catch the real agents, this was hardly going to advance this aim for which it obviously needed merely to go through the usual channels of inter-state police and intelligence agencies. Dubai is now going out of its way to point the finger at Israel, with its police chief Dahi Khalfan Tamim calling upon Interpol to issue a ‘Red Notice’ to arrest the head of Mossad.

There are many unanswered questions arising from Dubai’s claims. It is possible that Israel was responsible alone for this operation; it is possible that it was not involved and it is being set up; it is possible that Mossad was one of a number of state actors which are now setting up Israel alone to take the rap. Who knows?

Only the British media, it seems, for whom Israel is always guilty of bad deeds.

Email to a friend  |   Permalink   |   Comments (119)

Read his lips. Why do so few do so?

Excellent, if utterly chilling, analysis by the incomparable Greg Sheridan in the Australian of the way in which the world is sitting on its hands while Iran proceeds to acquire nuclear weapons in order to realise its openly declared aim of destroying the west. His point is that not only will even more stringent sanctions not work, but that even if Israel bombs Iran’s nuclear facilities it can at best only delay Iran going nuclear. And the one country that could stop it will not:

The US could strike Iran’s nuclear facilities far more effectively than Israel could, but to do so would be foreign to every instinct of the Obama administration. It would also be hugely risky. But the risks of not acting are even greater. Nonetheless, the portents are strong that the Obama administration will dither.

... Most Western analysts refuse to take Islamic religion seriously as a factor in geopolitics, assuming there must always be a rational national-interest explanation for any state’s behaviour. The truth is that history is littered with states behaving irrationally and pursuing irrational ends, and doing so in often self-destructive ways... It is intensely ahistorical to believe political regimes will always act according to Western conceptions of enlightened self-interest.

It is striking, to this British observer at least, how very unlikely it would be to encounter anywhere in the British media such a well-informed, realistic and intelligent analysis of the Iranian crisis and the paralysis of the west.

Email to a friend  |   Permalink   |   Comments (34)