I'm afraid I don't have a link for this, but I have just been sent a press release on a debate held last night at the Oxford Union:

66% OF OXFORD UNION AUDIENCE BELIEVE THE PRO-ISRAELI LOBBY STIFLES WESTERN DEBATE ABOUT ISRAEL'S ACTIONS

Oxford, UK: 2nd May – A series of heated exchanges marked the arrival of the Doha Debates at the Oxford Union last night, where two-thirds of the student audience approved a motion claiming that Israel's supporters are stifling western debate.

This was the first time that the Doha Debates, a unique forum for free speech in the Arab world, have held an event outside Qatar.

The debate, hosted by award winning broadcaster Tim Sebastian, took place amid mounting controversy over the role of the pro-Israel lobby in the United States and accusations that it has suppressed criticism of Israel – a charge that the lobby vigorously denies.

Norman Finkelstein, a leading academic critic of Israeli policies, argued in favour of the motion claiming that the Pro-Israel lobby sows confusion to avoid being held to account: "they claim that the conflict is so complicated that it would require rocket science to penetrate its mysteries."

Finkelstein maintained that the American people are ignorant of solutions to the conflict that have been available for 30 years due to the "misinformation, disinformation, and sheer fraud which masquerades as scholarship that is validated by mainstream media."

The journalist and writer Andrew Cockburn supported this view, claiming there are "red lines" in discussing Israel that no politician or journalist in the US would dare cross for fear of being demonised or driven out of public life.

Dr Martin Indyk, former US Ambassador to Israel, and Director of the Saban Center for Middle East Policy, argued strongly against the motion, saying that last night's event in Oxford was proof of a lively debate on the subject. He said controversy over a recent book by former US president Jimmy Carter – branded anti-Semitic in some quarters – was further evidence that criticism of Israel was not being stifled.

His fellow panellist David Aaronovitch, the journalist and broadcaster, dismissed accusations of conspiracy around the lobby, insisting that Americans naturally identified with Israel, a country surrounded by autocracies, because of their belief in democracy: "It wasn't the Israeli lobby that made Egypt, Jordan, or Syria dictatorships," he said.

He added that what may be true in the US is not the case in Europe where there is no such movement to sow confusion or stifle debate: "But if debate is stifled it isn't coming from the pro-Israeli lobby as some Danish cartoonists found out to their cost."

The debate will be broadcast on BBC World on Saturday 5th May and on Sunday 6th May.

Do you think any of the '66%' (and I'm deeply suspicious of any vote which has such a neat figure as two thirds) who believe that the pro-Israeli lobby stifles debate has spotted the irony in recording their vote in the Doha Debates, described as "a unique forum for free speech in the Arab world". That's free speech - in which people can debate issues such as, oh, Israel, Hezbollah and anything else they choose to discuss - being "unique" to the Doha Debates as in not existing elsewhere. Debate is oh-so-free in the Arab world, in Iran, and in the Palestinian Authority, isn't it?

(5)

It's always instructive to go by what people say, rather than the perception of them that mainstream opinion holds. So here's a question to those who say that Hamas is moderating in office - that the reality of authority is leading to greater promise for peace: have you actually read what they say? Do you listen to their words?

Sheik Ahmad Bahr is the acting Speaker of the Palestinian Legislative Council. And here's what he said on Friday:

Ahmad Bahr began: "You will be victorious" on the face of this planet. You are the masters of the world on the face of this planet. Yes, [the Koran says that] "you will be victorious," but only "if you are believers." Allah willing, "you will be victorious," while America and Israel will be annihilated. I guarantee you that the power of belief and faith is greater than the power of America and Israel. They are cowards, who are eager for life, while we are eager for death for the sake of Allah. That is why America's nose was rubbed in the mud in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Somalia, and everywhere.

Bahr continued and said that America will be annihilated, while Islam will remain. The Muslims "will be victorious, if you are believers." Oh Muslims, I guarantee you that the power of Allah is greater than America, by whom many are blinded today. Some people are blinded by the power of America. We say to them that with the might of Allah, with the might of His Messenger, and with the power of Allah, we are stronger than America and Israel.

The Hamas spokesperson concluded with a prayer, saying: "Oh Allah, vanquish the Jews and their supporters. Oh Allah, count their numbers, and kill them all, down to the very last one. Oh Allah, show them a day of darkness. Oh Allah, who sent down His Book, the mover of the clouds, who defeated the enemies of the Prophet defeat the Jews and the Americans, and bring us victory over them."

The voice of peace: Oh Allah, vanquish the Jews and their supporters. Oh Allah, count their numbers, and kill them all, down to the very last one.

(5)

This I love (it's a hip hop rendition of Hatikva).

(Via Harry's Place, which also links to this famous and unbearably moving recording by Patrick Gordon Walker of liberated inmates of Bergen Belsen singing Hatikvah on 20th April 1945.) /a>

There are few murkier and more dispiriting stories of late than the kidnap of Alan Johnston and the events which have followed it.

As Caroline Gluck rightly points out in the Jerusalem Post:

POOR JOHNSTON was so biased in favor of the Palestinians that he could have been forgiven for believing he would be safe from Palestinian terror. As the BBC's Middle East Bureau chief Simon Wilson put it, Johnston "is regarded as a Gaza journalist foremost and a foreign journalist second." The Palestinian Journalists Syndicate said that Johnston is "famous for his opinions which are supportive of the Palestinians."

Will the fact that the kidnappers seized - and, so it seems, murdered - a journalist so friendly to the Palestinians contribute in any way to a more level-headed assessment of the nature of Palestinian terrorism? Of course not. Anyone who has ever followed the media would know what the next stage of this affair would be: blame the Israelis.

Right on cue, the NUJ voted to boycott Israeli goods.

When this decision came under attack, the NUJ defended it on the grounds that the boycott was a quid pro quo for the Palestinian journalists' union opposing the kidnap of Johnstone.

Do I really need to point out what this means? Reversing the logic: Palestinian journalists think it's fine to kidnap other journalists but in this instance are prepared to oppose a kidnapping if a foreign union votes to boycott Israel.

Not that anyone can really think that that was all there is to it. Any observer of the NUJ would not be in the least bit shocked that the union decided to boycott for no other reason than that Israel exists.

The boycott is, in any case, puzzling. As Caroline Gluck continues:

It will be interesting to see how they manage to implement their boycott and work as reporters at the same time. Since Israeli engineers developed their cell phones, their Pentium chip computers, their voicemail and their instant messenger software, boycotting Israel will involve giving up their ability to quickly amass their anti-Israel propaganda, vomit it out on their computers and send it off to their Israel-bashing editors.

It's important in all this not to lose sight of the fact that a man has been murdered by Palestinian terrorists. It is entirely right that there were demonstrations, protests and attemots to free him. But isn't it about time that the same standard was applied by those who were protesting for Johnston's release to Israeli victims of Palestinian terror?

(8)

Tom Gross highlights a letter in the New York Times:

To the Editor:

David Brooks reports that "moderate Arab reformers" have traced the problems in Iraq, Iran and other Middle East hot spots to a country roughly the size of Massachusetts that dominates the affairs of its Arab neighbors and operates a puppet government in Washington as well.

O.K., but what do the hard-liners think?

Michael Smith
Cynthiana, Ky.

Melanie Phillips has a superb post, wrapping up two examples of what passes today for BBC analysis (by Ed Stourton and - him again - Jeremy Bowen) and a vile piece in yesterday's Guardian by Geoffrey Wheatcroft:

Stourton assumed that Israel’s attempt to defend itself against that aggression was illegitimate — and that no reasonable person could disagree. He asked the former US ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, why the Americans and the British had not supported the international calls for an immediate cease-fire.

...ES: Your former UN colleague the Syrian ambassador said to us that America was deliberately frustrating diplomatic attempts during those last two weeks of July precisely so Israel could have its head. From what you have just said, that’s a fair analysis of what was happening.

JB: I was damn proud of what we did.

Bolton was reacting to this line of questioning just as any normal person with a sense of justice would react. Faced with the proposition that a country had finally attempted to defend itself against an enemy which had constantly waged war against it, and that it did so by trying to destroy that enemy, he asked: ‘What was wrong with that?’ And of course, to a normal person there’s not only nothing wrong with it but it is the right and moral thing to do, to protect one’s country against further attack by attempting to destroy the enemy.

But in the twisted world of BBC values, it appears, Israel has no right to defend itself. Because when Stourton says the US and UK refused to call for a ceasefire, that’s not quite correct. They actually called upon Hezbollah from the start to stop its aggression. What Stourton — and the UK media and Labour party — found so unacceptable was that Bush and Blair didn’t insist that Israel should stop defending itself. In other words, that they did not insist that Israel surrender. And surrender, what’s more, to an army of Iran which has declared not only its intention to wipe Israel off the map but also to destroy the west and conquer the Arab world too.

Which is why Stourton goes on to report — in apparent amazement — that the Arab world was secretly hoping that Israel would indeed crush Hezbollah. Because the Arab world has every interest in Iran being defeated —as does the west, as do Bush and Blair and as do all sane and sentient people. That’s why it was in everyone’s interests for Israel to be allowed to defend itself by destroying its Iranian enemy before that enemy destroyed it. That’s why the US and the Arab world were so put out when Israel failed to destroy it.

But astoundingly, the BBC and the British left and a considerable proportion of the rest of Britain thinks the real problem was not Iranian aggression but that Israel might actually have defeated the army of Iran. They find it simply unconscionable that Israel was not required to surrender. According to Stourton, it is apparently a scandal that the US supported Israel in its self-defence; indeed, he represents this as some kind of sinister conspiracy that he has now unearthed through his amazing journalistic acumen. Democratic allies supporting each other in the great fight against fascism! What an outrage!

As for Wheatcroft's rant: let's just say it trots out pretty much every classic antisemitic theme going. As Melanie puts it:

Wheatcroft’s final charge, that British foreign policy is based on the interest of ‘another country’ —by which he presumably meant Israel — is simply contemptible. Once again, it is astonishing that this kind of sub-Protocols of the Elders of Zion racial libel about the Jews being a sinister conspiracy to subvert the foreign policy of Britain against the national interest is published in a mainstream British newspaper.

Indeed, it more or less proves my point in my Telegpraph piece below, prompting comments such as this on the Guardian site:

Jews in the UK are not normal people, they are Anglo-Jewish, and their loyalty to the UK is in question. No matter how many generations or centuries they have been in England, they are still outsiders.

Do read Melanie's full piece.

(6)

Another day, another UN report proving that Robert Fisk is spewing out nonsense again.

Here's what Mr Fisk wrote last October:

[S]cientific evidence gathered from at least two bomb craters in Khiam and At-Tiri, the scene of fierce fighting between Hizbollah guerrillas and Israeli troops last July and August, suggests that uranium-based munitions may now also be included in Israel's weapons inventory - and were used against targets in Lebanon.

…Asked by The Independent if the Israeli army had been using uranium-based munitions in Lebanon this summer, Mark Regev, the Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman, said: "Israel does not use any weaponry which is not authorised by international law or international conventions." This, however, begs more questions than it answers.

…Chris Bellamy, the professor of military science and doctrine at Cranfield University, who has reviewed the Busby report, said: "At worst it's some sort of experimental weapon with an enriched uranium component the purpose of which we don't yet know. At best - if you can say that - it shows a remarkably cavalier attitude to the use of nuclear waste products."

…Many Lebanese, however, long ago concluded that the latest Lebanon war was a weapons testing ground for the Americans and Iranians, who respectively supply Israel and Hizbollah with munitions. Just as Israel used hitherto-unproven US missiles in its attacks, so the Iranians were able to test-fire a rocket which hit an Israeli corvette off the Lebanese coast, killing four Israeli sailors and almost sinking the vessel after it suffered a 15-hour on-board fire.

What the weapons manufacturers make of the latest scientific findings of potential uranium weapons use in southern Lebanon is not yet known. Nor is their effect on civilians.

It's the usual Fisk style of piece - entirely partial, pulling together all sorts of outlandish and wild accusations against Israel based on the default premise that everything Israel does is wrong.

And it's the usual Fisk style of piece because it's completely wrong:

A panel of experts from the United Nations, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and other international agencies announced a unanimous determination Monday that no depleted-uranium weapons had been used in the summer 2006 war in Lebanon. "To date, there is no evidence of depleted-uranium-ammunitions use during the 2006 conflict in Lebanon," Didier Louvat, IAEA head of radioactive waste issues, told a news conference hosted by the National Council for Scientific Research in Bir Hassan.

…Senior UNEP' scientist Mario Burger conducted intensive research on soil samples collected in South Lebanon at the Spiez government laboratory in Switzerland. "No use of weapons containing depleted uranium" was found, he said, adding that "no use of weapons containing any uranium - depleted, natural, or enriched" was found.

An above-normal level of concentration of uranium had been found in Khiam, Burger said, but an investigation showed the level of uranium was consistent with levels naturally occurring in soil in the area.

The findings contradicted claims made in December by Chris Busby, secretary for the European Committee on Radiation Risk, who said there was "no way the signs of uranium found in Khiam were the result of natural or industrial materials. Their only source is nuclear reactors."

Not, of course, that Fisk believes anything he is told which paints Israel in a bad light. Of course not.

(3)

This is an astonishing piece:

Lieutenant-Colonel Thomas Ed-ward Lawrence - better known as "Lawrence of Arabia" - and renowned as a champion of Arab independence, actually had "a sort of contempt for the Arabs" and was an advocate of Jewish statehood from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea, according to acclaimed British historian Sir Martin Gilbert.

Lawrence believed that only with a sovereign Jewish entity in the area would the Arabs "ever make anything of themselves," according to Gilbert.

T.E. Lawrence, immortalized on film by Peter O'Toole, fought with Arab irregulars against the Ottoman Empire in World War I, wore Arabian clothes and adopted many Arab customs. He is widely perceived, Gilbert told The Jerusalem Post this week, as "the great Arabist, right? The man who supported the Arabs, and who pushed for Arab nationhood in the 1920s. He's always pictured wearing Arab robes."

The "astonishing" truth, however, Gilbert went on, is that Lawrence was "a serious Zionist. He believed that the only hope for the Arabs of Palestine and the rest of the region was Jewish statehood - that if the Jews had a state here, they would provide the modernity, the 'leaven,' as he put it, with which to enable the Arabs to move into the 20th century."

Gilbert, who said he had written about this issue in his forthcoming book, Churchill and the Jews, went so far as to say that Lawrence "had a sort of contempt for the Arabs, actually."

"He felt that only with a Jewish presence and state would the Arabs ever make anything of themselves. And, by a Jewish state, he meant a Jewish state from the Mediterranean shore to the River Jordan," said Gilbert, adding his own comment that this "will never come to pass."

Blimey.

(4)

If you don't already look at Tom Gross' Middle East despatch, I thoroughly recommend it. He always unearths nuggets. This week he makes a very good point about the use of the word 'apartheid' in his coverage of 'Israeli Apetheid Week':

Israel is, of course, not an apartheid state. Indeed it is the opposite. It is by far the most egalitarian state in the Middle East. Arab Israelis enjoy social and political freedoms and benefits only dreamed of by minority groups in most other countries in the world.

Israel grants full freedom of speech to its Arab parliamentarians, even when they call for Israel to be dismantled and for Hizbullah to bomb Israeli Jews. There is almost no another country in the world which permits such a degree of freedom to its internal opposition groups.

By saying that Israeli Arabs and Palestinians are being subjected to apartheid, Carter and others not only insult Israeli Jews, but also grossly malign black South Africans. Nelson Mandela and other black South Africans have been an inspiration to the world in the way they have demonstrated peaceful coexistence with the white population, whereas both the Palestinian Fatah and Hamas leadership and their supporters have repeatedly called for the mass murder of Jews, and taught kindergarten children that blowing up buses full of Israeli children is a glorious objective.

There's also a link to a superb piece by Irshad Manji.

(2)

A few days ago I revealed the now infamous Jeremy Bowen memo.

This week's Socialist Worker has this piece on the Middle East.

Question: Spot the difference,

Answer: As far as I can see, there isn't one.

(1)

Via Samizdata, this from Denis Leary:

I think we should take Iraq and Iran and combine them into one country and call it Irate. All the pissed off people live in one place and get it over with.

I have a short piece on the Carter book at The First Post.

(3)

Joy of joys. Via Clive Davis, here's the wonderful Al Jazeera spoof on the Daily Show. When I saw it on TV (if you don't watch it on More 4 at 8.30 you're missing funniest programme around) I laughed out loud.

Like Clive, I too watch Al Jazeera. Before it started I assumed it would be grotesque anti-Israel, anti-Western propaganda. I couldn't have been more wrong. The opinion slots are just that, but the news is by far the best coverage of the Middle East I have ever seen. Israelis are given proper air time, as are Palestinians. All sides of a story are covered. I couldn't be more impressed. And not least because it blows away any credibility the BBC might have when it claims to be objective.

UPDATE: I realise there is a big difference between the English and Arabic versions of Al Jazeera.

(4)

A BBC mole has sent me this briefing for BBC staff from the BBC's Middle East Editor, Jeremy Bowen, on what lies ahead this year.

It’s all too predictable. The "fragmentation" of Palestinian society has, in Mr Bowen’s view, nothing to do with the Palestinians and everything to do with Israel (“the death of hope, caused by a cocktail of Israel's military activities, land expropriation and settlement building – and the financial sanctions imposed on the Hamas led government”). Indeed, Israel is to blame for almost everything. The Palestinians are not responsible for anything; Israel is the culpable party.

He has contempt for every Israeli politician he mentions; Ehud Barak, for instance, is described as having killed "various Palestinians", written as if he did so for the sake of it.

If this is what passes for high-level analysis at the BBC, is it any wonder its reporting is so poisonous?

-----Original Message-----
From: Jeremy Bowen
To: Editorial Board; Newsg World-Bureaux-Eds; Newsg World Asseds; News Leadership Group; Mark Byford & PA; Simon Wilson-NEWS; Jerusalem Bureau;
Newsg World-Affairs-Unit
Sent: Fri Jan 05 15:16:16 2007
Subject: FW: Mini briefing on the Israeli and Palestinians

2007 has started as unpromisingly as 2006 ended. The outlook is bleak because of fundamental instabilities and weaknesses on both sides.

Israel's major military incursion into Ramallah on Thursday, killing four Palestinians after a botched arrest operation, was a reminder of the non stop pressures of the Israeli occupation.

What is new in the last year, and will be one of the big stories in the coming twelve months, is the way that Palestinian society, which used to draw strength from resistance to the occupation, is now fragmenting.

The reason is the death of hope, caused by a cocktail of Israel's military activities, land expropriation and settlement building – and the financial sanctions imposed on the Hamas led government which are destroying Palestinian institutions that were anyway flawed and fragile.

The result is that internecine violence between Hamas and Fatah is getting worse. On Thursday six people were killed in clashes between them in Gaza. The death of a major figure on either side would spark something much more serious.

In Israel the political turmoil that followed the inconclusive war with Hezbollah last summer continues unabated.

There are signs that PM Ehud Olmert is trying to set up his coalition partner Amir Peretz as a scapegoat for Israel's problems during the war and since, by ousting him from the defence ministry. Olmert may be hoping he'll get away with it because Peretz's position as Labour leader is already under attack from within his own party. Peretz's people say
that if Olmert tries it, the government will fall.

Even if does manage to demote Peretz, he probably won't improve his parlous position in the polls. It is exactly a year since Ariel Sharon's stroke, so Israelis are comparing their lost leader with the one they have now, and finding him wanting. An air of incompetence hangs around Olmert when it comes to military matters. Typical was the timing of the
raid in Ramallah, which ruined yesterday's summit with Mubarak which was supposed to bring closer the release of the captured Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit.

Olmert wants to replace Peretz at the defence ministry with Ehud Barak, the former Prime Minister. Barak is a retired general, former head of the Israeli army and its most decorated soldier. (Among his many exploits was disguising himself as a woman during a raid in Beirut to kill various Palestinians). The feeling in Israel is that 2007 will be a year of wars, so aside from coalition politics Olmert wants to have a warrior next to him when they make the tough decisions. The intray could include whether or not to attack Iran's nuclear facilities.

Another serious problem for Olmert is that yet another corruption scandal is lapping close to him. This time the head of the PM's office in Jerusalem is under house arrest for her alleged role in corruption in Israel's tax authority. Olmert is not yet implicated, though he's already been under investigation over separate allegations.

The political crises in Israel - and violent political disintegration among the Palestinians - are not just internal matters. They make it impossible for the Israelis and the Palestinians to engage in a meaningful political dialogue, assuming that their protestations that they want one are true. (The one meeting that Olmert has had with Mahmoud Abbas can hardly be called a process.)

Only strong Israeli and Palestinian leaders would be able to make the tough choices necessary to relieve the serious pressures that are building up in the holy land. To persuade their people to make the necessary concessions, they would need a strong political base, which neither Olmert nor Abbas possess.

Because they are weak - many would say lame ducks - don't expect any progress. And since an uneasy status quo cannot hold, no political progress will equal more violence.

UPDATE: One of the commenters points out that, as the subject line starts 'FW:', Mr Bowen might not have written this. That's a good point, but I have seen the original and the subject line on my version has been altered to protect the identity of the source. (Nothing else has been changed.) It is indeed written by Jeremy Bowen.

(12)

Here's a must-read review by Alan Dershowitz of Jimmy Carter's new book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid. It seems to be the sort of book where the title says it all:

"Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid" is so biased that it inevitably raises the question of what would motivate a decent man like Jimmy Carter to write such an indecent book. Whatever Mr. Carter's motives may be, his authorship of this ahistorical, one-sided, and simplistic brief against Israel forever disqualifies him from playing any positive role in fairly resolving the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. That is a tragedy because the Carter Center, which has done much good in the world, could have been a force for peace if Jimmy Carter were as generous in spirit to the Israelis as he is to the Palestinians.

(13)

This piece by Moshe Arens on the appointment of Avigdor Lieberman as minister for strategic thinking about Iran is well worth a read:

[A]s we know the irrational player, the "crazy one," has certain advantages in such a situation. Ever since John von Neumann pioneered the game theory, the study of the interaction between parties having conflicting interests, the difficulties of dealing with a non-rational player have been clearly recognized.

...But when a rational player confronts an irrational one, the irrational player has a decided advantage. While he is counting on the rational response of his opponents to his moves, they don't know what to expect of him. Maybe their best bet is just to let him have what he wants, rather than risking his irrational response to their move. Given the reticence of the U.S. and European nations in facing up to the bellicose, adventurous leaders of Iran and North Korea pursuing their nuclear ambitions, one begins to wonder whether they have not decided to revert to such a strategy. Maybe it is better to be at least temporarily safe than sorry.

But what if the irrational player is confronted by an irrational opponent? Now here is a brain-buster. And maybe this is what Olmert had in mind. Let Lieberman act the role of the irrational player, and now let's see what Ahmadinejad will do. Maybe this is the way to outwit the madman in Teheran. Lieberman's past statements about bombing Teheran, destroying the Aswan dam, laying waste to Gaza, and stripping Israel's Arab citizens of their citizenship might very well make Ahmedinejad believe that now he is up against an entirely different type of opponent.

(1)

The distinguished scholar, Emanuele Ottolenghi - the new director of the Transatlantic Institute - is anwering questions all week at Ha'aretz. You can catch up here.

Alan Dershowitz has a truly damning piece about The Guardian's distortions here at the Jerusalem Post.

(1)

If you haven't already discovered it, Tom Gross' 'Mideast Dispatch' is a regularly updated treasure trove of background and stories. His latest, just posted, is typical. The contents list is varied and intriguing:

CONTENTS

1. Benedict XVI shoots and kills on al-Jazeera
2. A cartoon from Australia
3. And the pope with a swastika
4. And the pope connected to a fuse
5. Not your usual messages by the Cathedral
6. Danish newspaper reprints Iranian Holocaust cartoons
7. Greek government includes Iranian Holocaust cartoonist
8. "Night of Bush (and Blair) capturing"

You can read it here.

South African ministers are now, it seems, allowed another kind of hatred: that of Israel.

(11)

Here's a good Alan Dershowitz piece on how Human Rights Watch and AI redefine 'war crime' so it comes to mean 'anything Israel does'.

(1)

Hot Air has a great post on what looks like more 'fauxtography', as they call it.

This picture by AP photographer Nasser Nasser, taken on August 6th, comes vis that post, and shows what purports to be a car hit by an Israeli missile:

You and I might think that it looks more like a car which has been given the Basil Fawlty treatment with a couple of hammers. Especially when you look at what a Katyusha rocket - less powerful than an Israeli missile - does to a car (via Little Green Footballs):

(4)

Almost as bad as my comments section:

Two Palestinian families went after each other with knives and clubs at a wedding after one guest cursed the leader of Lebanon's Hizbullah guerrilla group, Palestinian security officials said Monday. Seven people were seriously wounded, they said.

It took police three hours to break up the brawl that erupted Sunday night in the village of Aqada near the West Bank town of Jenin after a critic called Sheik Hassan Nasrallah "a dog," they said.

Iain Dale has a video of a German TV news programme's exposure of the 'Green Helmet Man' in Qana, using dead children as propaganda puppets for Hezbollah. Do look at it.

Given Hezbollah's contempt for Lebanese lives, it wouldn't surprise me if he'd killed the boy himself to use as a tool.

(3)

This is what the President of the International Red Cross has to say about the 'destruction' of Lebanon:

The beaches in Beirut are packed and businesses downtown are doing well, Kellenberger said...

I've taken down a picture here which on reflection is in poor taste.

(2)

The story behind the story in the Middle East today is the proxy war, as Israel, on behalf of the US, takes on Hezbollah, which fights on behalf of Iran and Syria. Indeed, one can widen it further and describe the participants as proxies for the West versus militant Islam.

This analysis of the conflict sometimes mentions, in passing, Russia’s declining influence. But there is another player that has somehow received almost no coverage.

For decades China has been building up influence in the Middle East. It suits China’s strategy well that coverage has been almost non-existent. As Deng Xiaoping once put it, China must “hide brightness and nourish obscurity . . . to bide our time and build up our capabilities”. As China develops into the role of global power, its influence on the region is no longer obscure; it cannot now be ignored.

The original postwar Middle East proxies were the US and the Soviet Union. Washington supporting Israel and the Kremlin sponsoring enemy regimes and their terrorist offshoots. But the Sino-Soviet split, which began in the 1960s, meant a lifting of the constraint on China getting involved, and it soon began to develop ties to countries that were not under Soviet influence, such as Egypt under Sadat.

A brilliant analysis of China’s role by Barry Rubin, in the Middle East Review of International Affairs, describes China’s first steps thus: “As hope for global revolution faded and Beijing switched its partners from tiny opposition groups to governments, China now projected itself as leader of the Third World, struggling against the hegemony of the two superpowers, the USSR and the United States. Lacking the strength and level of development of other great powers, China would try to make itself the head of a massive coalition of the weaker states.” That meant, in the Middle East, Israel’s enemies.

Today countries such as Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Pakistan — all key states in the region — have strong ties to China, which they are all likely to see as a counterbalance to American power in the Middle East and beyond.

As President Jiang Zemin put it in 1994, US “hegemony” should be opposed, in part by helping countries such as Iran, which were already fighting that battle. But China’s strategy dovetailed geopolitics with economic necessity. Without access to oil markets, China had to fuel economic expansion by turning to more neglected suppliers, such as Iran, Iraq and Sudan. And with a growing consumption of Gulf oil, so China has had to direct its security policy towards ensuring that the US will not be able to interfere with the flow of oil. This means developing ever stronger political and strategic relationships with oil exporters.

Jiang’s state visit in 1999 to Saudi Arabia cemented what he termed a “strategic oil partnership”. In 1996 Saudi exported 60,000 barrels per day to China. By 2000 exports stood 350,000 bpd (17 per cent of Beijing’s oil imports). Iranian oil exports rose even faster, from 20,000 bpd in 1995 to 200,000 bpd in 2000.

The Middle East is now China’s fourth largest trading partner. But its trade is hardly traditional. As Rubin puts it: “Being so late in entering the region — and having less to offer in economic or technology terms than the United States, Russia, Japan, and Europe — China must go after marginal or risky markets . . . supplying customers no one else will service with goods no one else will sell them.” What that means, of course, is arms.

In the war-by-proxy analysis, Iran is rightly said to be the power and arms supplier behind Hezbollah. But the issue of where Iran’s arms come from has been ignored. China has sold Iran tanks, planes, artillery, cruise, anti-tank, surface-to-surface and anti-aircraft missiles as well as ships and mines. It is also Iran’s main supplier of unconventional arms and is thought by almost all monitors to be illicitly involved in supplying key elements in Iran’s chemical and nuclear weapons programme. This is despite China being a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the Chemical Weapons Convention.

China has sold nuclear reactors to Algeria, Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia, and Chinese nuclear weapons designs were found in Libya. It has also negotiated with Syria on the sale of M11 ballistic missiles. China is one of the few global suppliers of ballistic missiles. and can charge a heavy price. It demanded of the Saudis, for instance, to whom it sold CSS2 missiles, payment in cash, ensuring both the cementing of a key strategic relationship and total deniability of the sale.

Both nations have kept the relationship as secret as possible, but one expert, Robert Mullins, estimates that at least 1,000 Chinese military advisers have been based at Saudi missile installations since the mid-1990s. Such secret deals are handled by Polytechnologies Incorporated, a defence firm controlled by the People’s Liberation Army, which both installs weapons and trains handlers.

But like all the most successful illicit traders, China is ideologically profligate in its relations. Keen to supply weapons to Israel’s enemies in return for oil, it is equally happy to trade with Israel in return for its technology. As Benjamin Netanyahu put it to the Chinese when, as Prime Minister, he championed an Israeli investment in China: “Israeli knowhow is more valuable than Arab oil.” The estimates are that there has been between $1 billion and $3 billion of arms trade between China and Israel. But in this case the flow of arms and weapons technology has been from Israel to China.

In the immediate analysis of the present conflict, it is clearly Iran and Syria that, as President Bush put it, should “stop doing this shit”. But any deeper explanation of the realpolitik of the Middle East has to include the insidious role of the Chinese, the 21st century’s next superpower.

(2)

One of the great myths of World War Two is that the Dutch somehow protected Jews. The claim is nonsense. A higher proportion of Dutch Jews were murdered by the Nazis than anywhere else in Western Europe, in large measure because they were given up by collaborators (Simon Kuper's brilliant book about Ajax football team is fascinating on Dutch antisemitism).

The real heroes were the Danes. And it's heartening to learn that they remain strong in their opposition to the murder of Jews. This story from the Copenhagen Posthttp://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1679131/posts gives the details:

Danes staunchly support the Israelis in their current battle against Hezbollah, according to a new Gallup poll initiated by the daily newspaper Berlingske Tidende. The poll indicates that 57 percent believe Hezbollah is to blame for the conflict, while only 37 percent point the finger at Israel.

By the same token, 48 percent of Danes sympathise with Israel, while only seven percent support Hezbollah.

There is also a majority backing for the government's handling of the situation in Lebanon. Sixty-one percent of the Danish public supports the government's decisions not to move forces from Iraq to Lebanon as a peacekeeping force, and also its hesitance to criticise Israel more forcefully over the Lebanon situation.

'I'm happy about the support for the government's course in this complex conflict,' stated Minister of Foreign Affairs Per Stig Møller.

(3)

Not, of course, that a peace-loving nation such as Syria has anything but honourable intentions in supporting Hezbollah, but this is what the Syrian Foreign Minister has to say about the proposed UN resolution:

He added that a US-French draft resolution to end the war "adopted Israel's point of view only." Underlining his support for Hizbullah, Moallem said, "as Syria's foreign minister I hope to be a soldier in the resistance."

Salloukh said that "Israel cannot take in peace what it had failed to take in war."

Since Israel has spent the last few years withdrawing from Lebanon and Gaza and has no wish to make new inroads, and the key things Israel hasn't secured are peace and freedom from terror, his words can have only one meaning: that Syria will not allow Israel to live in peace.

(1)

James Higham links to a very interesting piece from The Age on Arab disquiet over Hezbollah over the Sunni-Shiite divide:

Zabadani, a Syrian resort in the mountains facing Lebanon, fills with Gulf Arabs each summer. Many interviewed along the main street said they supported Hezbollah in its fight with Israel, but some made their distaste for Shiites clear.

"They think they will be the leaders of all Muslims, and I don't want that," a 45-year-old high school maths teacher from Riyadh said. "Hezbollah is Iranian; everyone knows that."

...Since the beginning of this outbreak of violence, extremist Sunni groups such as al-Qaeda have tried to portray their struggle as parallel with Hezbollah's, as a fight against Zionism and the sinful West. But the late al-Qaeda leader in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, issued long screeds that labelled all Shiites heretics deserving death. Even mainstream Sunni leaders such as King Abdullah of Jordan spoke darkly of a "Shiite crescent" emerging from Iran through the Persian Gulf to Iraq, Syria and Lebanon.

(2)

The Times had an interview with Ehud Olmert on 2nd August. One answer in particular deserves to be read in full:

Q: But there is a sense in the world, and you must be aware of it, of lack of "proportionality". Many people question how after two soldiers kidnapped and eight killed by Hezbollah we are now seeing upwards of 400 dead and rising in Lebanon. How can such an initial incident justify such a huge response from Israel?

A: I think that you are missing a major part. The war started not only by killing eight Israeli soldiers and abducting two but by shooting Katyusha and other rockets on the northern cities of Israel on that same morning. Indiscriminately.

Now we know that for years Hezbollah - assisted by Iran - built an infrastructure of a very significant volume in the south part of Lebanon to be used against Israeli people. The most obvious, simple, way to describe it to the average British person is: can you imagine seven million British citizens sitting for 22 days in Manchester, Liverpool, Birmingham in Newcastle, in Brighton and in other cities? Twenty two days in shelters because a terrorist organisation was shooting rockets and missiles on their heads? What would have been the British reaction to that? Do you know of a country that would have responded to such a brutal attack on its citizens softer than Israel did? Based on my knowledge of history no country in Europe would have responded in such a restrained manner as Israel did.

I don’t want now to draw comparisons [but] one could ask the question what precisely did the European forces [do] in Kosovo 10 years ago. How many innocent civilians were killed in Kosovo 10 years ago? We can draw on and on these comparisons.

What are we talking about? More than a million Israelis are sitting 22 days in shelters because of the fear of terrorists. In every single case...that we kill an uninvolved civilian in Lebanon, we consider it as a failure for Israel. And you know how many Israelis raise their voices as a result of this? And they don’t have to because we feel that we failed when we killed uninvolved people.

The difference between us and Hezbollah is that when we kill innocent people we consider it a failure, when they kill innocent people they consider it a success.

Tell me, who are they aiming at when they shoot already 2800 rockets on Haifa, Hanariya, Akko, Sefat, Afula and the rest of the places, if not to kill innocent people? So I’m sorry for every individual that was killed that was not involved.

And by the way, how do you really know that 400 innocent civilians were killed? How do you know who is innocent and who is not? Why? This is not an army. They don’t wear uniforms that distinguish them from other civilians. We didn’t attack any of the Christian quarters of Beirut. We didn’t attack any of the Christian residential areas in any part of Lebanon. We attacked only those areas where they had the Katyusha launchers, where they had the missile launchers, where they had the command positions of Hezbollah, where they had the storage houses, the logistic centres and so on and so forth.

So the fact that people were killed there who were not dressed in uniforms doesn’t mean that they were innocent civilians. There were Hezbollah people, they are the terrorists. Did you ever see terrorists dressed with military uniforms like we have in our army? No.

(1)

Tom Gross, a one-man truth machine, has this terrific piece on media bias against Israel. I have my issues with the BBC, but his piece makes clear the Beeb is far from alone.

(2)

Here's what a CNN reporter has to say about Hezbollah's tactics:

We'd come to get a look at the damage and had hoped to talk with a Hezbollah representative. Instead, we found ourselves with other foreign reporters taken on a guided tour by Hezbollah. Young men on motor scooters followed our every movement. They only allowed us to videotape certain streets, certain buildings. Once, when they thought we'd videotaped them, they asked us to erase the tape. These men are called al-Shabab, Hezbollah volunteers who are the organization's eyes and ears.

...Hezbollah representatives are with us now but don't want to be photographed. They'll point to something like that [CDs on a wall] and they'll say, ‘Well, look, this is a store.’ The civilians lived in this building. This is a residential complex. And while that may be true, what the Israelis will say is that Hezbollah has their offices, their leadership has offices and bunkers even in residential neighborhoods. And if you're trying to knock out the Hezbollah leadership with air strikes, it's very difficult to do that without killing civilians.

As bad as this damage is, it certainly could have been much worse in terms of civilian casualties. Before they started heavily bombing this area, Israeli warplanes did drop leaflets in this area, telling people to get out. The civilian death toll, though, has angered many Lebanese. Even those who do not support Hezbollah are outraged by the pictures they've seen on television of civilian casualties.

Civilian casualties are clearly what Hezbollah wants foreign reporters to focus on. It keeps the attention off them — and questions about why Hezbollah should still be allowed to have weapons when all the other militias in Lebanon have already disarmed.

After letting us take pictures of a few damaged buildings, they take us to another location, where there are ambulances waiting. This is a heavily orchestrated Hezbollah media event. When we got here, all the ambulances were lined up. We were allowed a few minutes to talk to the ambulance drivers. Then one by one, they've been told to turn on their sirens and zoom off so that all the photographers here can get shots of ambulances rushing off to treat civilians. That's the story that Hezbollah wants people to know about.

These ambulances aren't responding to any new bombings. The sirens are strictly for effect.

Here's a further, more accurate map of the 'devastation' of Beirut:

(via Honest Reporting)

(2)

Here's more on the idea that Qana is not what it seemed:

Anti-Syrian elements in Lebanon openly point finger at Hizbullah as guilty of killing of dozens of civilians in order to curtail plans for disarming group. 'Hizbullah has placed rocket launcher on building's roof and brought invalid children inside in bid to provoke Israeli response,' they write

Here's what Iran has to say:

Iranian FM calls for immediate Lebanon cease-fire

And here's what the EU has to say:

EU draft statement calls for immediate cease-fire

I make no comment, merely observe.

These two stories, taken together, are interesting. They may turn out to have no salience, but they are both certainly possible:

First this, from Haaretz:

The Israel Defense Forces indicated yesterday that it might not have been responsible for the deaths of at least 54 Lebanese, including 37 children , when a building bombed in an Israeli air strike in the village of Qana collapsed yesterday - but was unable to offer an alternative explanation.

There is an unexplained gap of about seven hours between the one Israeli air strike that hit the Qana building housing the civilians, which took place around 1 A.M. Sunday, and the first report that the building had collapsed, said the chief of staff of the Israel Air Force, Brigadier General Amir Eshel. Speaking at a press conference at the Kirya military complex in Tel Aviv last night, Eshel said that of three Israeli air strikes on Qana early Sunday, only the first strike hit the building in which the civilians were staying. The other two hit areas at least 400 meters away.

"I can't say whether the house collapsed at 12 A.M. or at 8 A.M.," said Eshel. "According to foreign press reports, and this is one of the reports we are relying on, the house collapsed at 8 A.M. We do not have testimony regarding the time of the collapse. If the house collapsed at 12 A.M., it is difficult for me to believe that they waited eight hours to evacuate it."

Then there is this, too:

This morning, I posted some speculation that the 30-foot banner of Secretary of State Rice that miraculously showed up in Qana yesterday was probably prepared in advance, leading to questions whether the entire event was staged. Tonight, reader Postermaker made the following comments about that blog post:

Since I do banners like this for a living, I can tell you it take more than a few hours depending on the equipment. A banner that large can be done one of two ways. With a grant format printer. It would probably take about 3-4 hours to print, then hours more to sew and grommet so it could hung. It would have to be Made of heavy duty material or one that was reinforced or the sheer weight would rip it apart.

The other way it to use a smaller series of machines all color calibrated and produce sections. At that point they would have to be stretch the length of the banner ( read large facility) and sewn together. Additional support would go on the tops and bottoms.

In short if it was related Qana and went up within two hours- four hours, it was done prior to the bomb hitting. No other way. Just putting an image together that large on a computer with Type would take a few hours.

Then color tests, proofs and finally printing. That would be an all day affair for most print houses even with a grand format printer. The cost would be in the thousands.

Then you would have to transport it.

As I say, both may - indeed, probably will - be red herrings. But given Hezbollah's media savvy, and their contempt for human life, it's far from impossible that they staged the entire thing.

(via The Corner.)

(4)

Here's the man who is supposedly caught in the middle of Hezbollah and Israel has to say:

Lebanese President Emile Lahoud said that Hizbullah's victory was a victory of the entire Lebanese nation. He warned that the Lebanese army "would join the battle" if Israel launches a large-scale invasion of Lebanon.

Lahoud stressed that Hizbullah cannot be disarmed since the Lebanese army was not as strong as the IDF. He objected to the deployment of a new international force in southern Lebanon but noted that Lebanon would support the strengthening of the existing UNIFIL force.

(1)

Here's what the Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora, who is supposedly unable rather than unwilling to disarm Hezbollah, had to say when asked about a call from Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah to take advantage of Hezbollah's s fight against Israel:

We are in a strong position and I thank the Sayyed for his efforts. I also thank all those who sacrifice their lives for the independence and sovereignty of Lebanon.

Find me the reference to disarming Hezbollah, or the call for it to stop bombing Israel, in that.

(1)

Not all of the European establishment are misguided. Some people get it; this is Joschka Fischer, the former German foreign minister:

The current war in Lebanon is not a war by the Arab world against Israel; rather, it is a war orchestrated by the region's radical forces - Hamas and Islamic Jihad among the Palestinians, Hezbollah in Lebanon, Syria and Iran - which fundamentally reject any settlement with Israel.

Conflict was sought for three reasons: first to ease pressure on Hamas from within the Palestinian community to recognize Israel; second to undermine democratization in Lebanon, which was marginalizing Syria; and third to lift attention from the emerging dispute over the Iranian nuclear program and demonstrate to the West the "tools" at its disposal in the case of a conflict.

Moderate Arab governments understand full well the issue at stake in this war: It is about regional hegemony in the case of Syria with Lebanon and Palestine and, on a wider level, Iran's hegemonic claim to the entire Middle East. Yet the war in Lebanon and Gaza could prove to be a miscalculation for the radicals. By firing missiles on Haifa, Israel's third-largest city, a boundary has been crossed. From now on, the issue is no longer primarily one of territory, restitution or occupation. Instead, the main issue is the strategic threat to Israel's existence.

(4)

Charles Krauthammer has a superb piece in the Jewish World Review:

What other country, when attacked in an unprovoked aggression across a recognized international frontier, is then put on a countdown clock by the world, given a limited time window in which to fight back, regardless of whether it has restored its own security?

What other country sustains 1,500 indiscriminate rocket attacks into its cities — every one designed to kill, maim and terrorize civilians — and is then vilified by the world when it tries to destroy the enemy's infrastructure and strongholds with precision-guided munitions that sometimes have the unintended but unavoidable consequence of collateral civilian death and suffering?

Hearing the world pass judgment on the Israel-Hezbollah war as it unfolds is to live in an Orwellian moral universe. With a few significant exceptions (the leadership of the United States, Britain, Australia, Canada and a very few others), the world — governments, the media, U.N. bureaucrats — has completely lost its moral bearings.

Read it all.

(1)

The truth of Charles H Spurgeon's aphorism that “A lie travels round the world, while Truth is putting on her boots” is shown daily by the credulous reporting from the Hezbollah propaganda machine.

But the truth will out. Just as the supposed Jenin 'massacre' was first shown to be no such thing by a map which showed the affected areas, so too Israel's current actions are not the destruction of Beirut which the BBC would have us believe, but a carefully targeted action against the key terror points. Have a look at this map, which shows the affected area in grey, and tell me how it shows that most of Beirut has been attacked.

UPDATE: The source of the above map has made clear that it is now out of date, but that although it now has innacuracies, "the general idea of a small part of the city being affected is accurate".

(6)

There's been - understandably - a lot of coverage of the Israeli bombing of a UN observer post. But what's less understandable is that there has not been any coverage, as far as I can see, of Hezbollah's attacks on the UN.

Here's what today's latest UNIFIL bulletin has to report:

Another UN position of the Ghanaian battalion in the area of Marwahin in the western sector was also directly hit by one mortar round from the Hezbollah side last night. The round did not explode, and there were no casualties or material damage. Another 5 incidents of firing close to UN positions from the Israeli side were reported yesterday. It was also reported that Hezbollah fired from the vicinity of four UN positions at Alma ash Shab, Tibnin, Brashit, and At Tiri. All UNIFIL positions remain occupied and maintained by the troops.

The Israelis deny their bombing was deliberate. But what about Hezbollah's bombings? Perhaps they were also an accident. Perhaps they weren't. But isn't it indicative of the bias in reporting that when Israel issues a denial, there is near universal treatment of that denial as a lie. When Hezbollah bombs the UN, the incident isn't even reported.

(1)

Harry's Place has a transcript of an interview with CNN's Nic Robertson on Hezbollah's restrictions on media coverage in Lebanon. It's well worth a read as an example of how perceptions of reality are being affected by their slick media operation:

ROBERTSON: Well, Howard, there's no doubt about it: Hezbollah has a very, very sophisticated and slick media operations. In fact, beyond that, it has very, very good control over its areas in the south of Beirut. They deny journalists access into those areas. They can turn on and off access to hospitals in those areas. They have a lot of power and influence. You don't get in there without their permission.

...And absolutely, when you hear their claims they have to come with -- with a -- more than a grain of salt, that you have to put in some journalistic integrity. That you have to point out to the audience and let them know that this was a guided tour by Hezbollah press officials along with security, that it was a very rushed affair.

KURTZ: Right.

ROBERTSON: That there wasn't time to go and look through those buildings. The audience has to know the conditions of that tour. But again, if we didn't get all -- or we could not get access to those areas without Hezbollah compliance, they control those areas.

KURTZ: Right.

ROBERTSON: And I think to bring the audience the full picture of what's happening in Beirut, you have to go into those southern suburbs.

KURTZ: All right.

ROBERTSON: Because that's where the vast majority of bombs were falling.

KURTZ: I understand.

ROBERTSON: Again, they come with a health warning that we cannot vouch for everything that Hezbollah is saying. And I think the audience is sophisticated enough to appreciate that, Howard.

I wonder how Jeremy Bowen holding a teddy bear in a bombed building fits in with his last two sentences.

As a friend with close connections to many of those involved emailed me this morning:

This whole news coverage reminds me a lot of defensive shield - when the dust settles people will realise that a tiny bit of Beirut has been targetted and that, as per normal, the media have completely over-reacted. Last night on the 10 they followed the Israel story with the 4m dead in the congo civil war....shows they've got their priorities right.

(3)

Today's Times has a succinct letter shredding Matthew Parris' silly piece:

Sir, Matthew Parris states that “the past 40 years have been a catastrophe . . . for world Jewry”.

In analysing the period 1967-2006, Jews have regained control over the holiest place in their religion, Jerusalem, have established more Jewish educational schools, colleges and seminaries worldwide than at any other time in our history, created more Nobel prize winners, been at the forefront of research and invention in the fields of science, medicine, IT and music, have outlived the Soviet labour camps and seen the release of the refuseniks, rejoined Ethiopian Jewry with its brethren, enjoyed relative economic stability and relative political freedom.

In 1927-67, there was the Holocaust, postwar pogroms in Poland and the attempts by Britiain to return refugees to Germany or imprison them in Cypriot prisons. In 1887-1927, there was the persecution of Jews and pogroms in Tsarist and then Bolshevik Russia, the displacement of millions of Jews from Eastern Europe, the Dreyfus affair in France and Jewish poverty in the UK and the US.

The past 40 years have been a golden period for world Jewry. But many of us now believe the clouds are back.

ANDREW BESSER
London EC2

There's also another version of the voice of the British foreign policy establishment, this time from Lord Howell and Baroness Symons. You don't have to read it to know what it will say:

Israel has now set itself not just against Hezbollah but against the entire Lebanese people and the Lebanese State. Incredibly, the Lebanese Government, Israel’s neighbour and the only other democracy in the region, has been declared Israel’s foe. Its very attempts to bring Hezbollah representatives into the process of government have been depicted not merely as tolerance of, but actual collaboration with, terror, giving credibility to those militants and killers for which Israel holds Lebanon responsible. The state of Lebanon must therefore now be punished. From the Israeli military the word seems to have gone out: Lebanon delenda est.

Blah, blah, blah.

(Mind you, this bit is downright hilarious:

The impact will go further. America’s reputation in the region is already at zero, with the conviction, almost universal, even if only half-true, that Israel is the proxy of the United States and relies on its technological weapons superiority (although that may now be eroding). But Britain, which always had a reputation for greater wisdom in the region, can still be the friend of small nations, the friends of the resurgent Lebanon and the friend of moderation and restraint.

Here's the thing, Dave and Liz. There's one en