Good comment on Matt's post here:

Dismantling the apartheid-like situation in the West Bank, by contrast, doesn't require liquidating the Zionist enterprise it just requires the dismantling of the settlement system

I agree that improving the situation of Palestinians living under Israeli control does not involve liquidating the Zionist enterprise. But the notion that the oppression of Palestinians is a matter of small exceptions such as Hebron, or that the illegal settlements are the only barriers to justice for Palestinians, is just out of tune with reality.

I find the most troubling aspect of this incredibly contentious disagreement is the denial of the objective reality of Palestinian suffering. It is simply objectively true that some Palestinian cities are placed under 24 hour curfew, with no system in place to challenge the curfew. It is simply a fact that Palestinian homes are routinely bulldozed without due process or legal recourse, and that rebuilding those homes requires a permit that costs more than the average Palestinian makes in years-- and which carries no guarantee that the rebuilt home won't be demolished. It is a fact that Palestinians in many areas require special identification cards, that they have to pass through Palestinian only checkpoints, that they are subject to interrogations and questioning that Israeli Jews aren't. And, yes, it is a fact that an enormous wall which has been planned with complete disregard for existing communities divides residential areas from roads, isolates individual neighborhoods and deprives people living in a desert climate from water.

The wisdom of these actions is debatable. You can, and many do, argue that they are necessary to promote Israeli security. There, I think, there's room for dialogue. But it seems that for far to many supporters of Israel, discussion can't include accounting for Palestinian oppression at all. And when you start from that kind of a place, you are involved in self-delusion.

I'm also saddened that you seem to present ending the project of Zionism as the goal of people who support justice for Palestinians. There are some who are opposed to the existence of Israel at all, yes. But to suggest that anyone who is opposed to the status quo for some of the most beleagured people on earth is anti-Zionist is, I think, wrong headed. I personally support the Zionist enterprise, although it depends on the definition of Zionism. What I take issue with is the existence anywhere of a state with an explicitly ethnic or religious character. I don't like state religion, not in Israel or America or Iran or Saudi Arabia. And I don't like countries that are founded for individual ethnicities. If that's being opposed to Zionism, I suppose I am. But I do support the existence of a secular, egalitarian Israel, one that ensures safety and freedom for Jews and Palestinians alike. I don't think acknowledging the horrible conditions that Palestinians face prevents someone from supporting the continued existence of Israel.

 Quite.

-posted by Adam

Oliver Kamm is getting desperate. He is a good blogger. He has a tendency to sound like the most pompous bloke in the room, but his posts are always elegantly written and packed full of interesting facts. But he really needs to give up on the neo-conservatism. His latest post, which is an attempt to call into question Johann Hari's spot on reading of neo-conservatism here, is the work of a man who is trying to cover up his horrendous misjudgement by nit-picking and needless pedantry. The elephant in Kamm's room is a huge number of dead Iraqis and a failed state swamped with terrorist nutters.

Kamm was wrong, about the whole thing. I think he needs to get of his high horse and admit that, before he digs himself any deeper into a hole. Maybe its harder to do that when you are as obviously amazingly intelligent (he speaks German! and French!) as Kamm is, I wouldn't know. But what I do know is that the invasion he (and I, at the time) backed has killed 500,000+ people.

He can quote as many books about the debates in US foreign policy as he likes, but it doesn't change the facts about Iraq, and about the stupid, stupid bunch of callous psychopaths who launched it. Their incompetence really is breathtaking - I should know, for some reason I've decided to write my dissertation on the whole bloody mess.

-posted by Adam

 I'm up for work in less than seven hours, so don't expect anything original from me. Instead, here's this reprinted from Harry's Place as part of a blog campaign:

Since British troops occupied Southern Iraq in the spring of 2003, thousands of Iraqi citizens have worked for the British Army, the Coalition Provisional Authority (South) and for contractors serving UK forces. There is now considerable evidence that their lives, and the lives of their families, are at risk: some former workers for the British have been murdered, and many others have fled to neighbouring countries or gone into hiding in Basra. The British Government, for whom they were ultimately working, has not offered them the right of asylum in the UK. This is morally unacceptable. It is also unnecessary, since we are well able to accommodate several thousand Iraqi refugees, most of whom already speak English and all of whom have already worked for our country.

The most detailed recent report, by Jonathan Miller of Channel Four news, notes the murder of 17 translators in one single incident in Basra. It cites the cases of hundreds of others who have fled to a refugee existence in nearby Middle Eastern countries or are in hiding in Iraq. The British Government response has come from the Home Office, which has suggested that Iraqis put at risk by their work for British troops 'register with the UN refugee agency'. Other reports provide supporting detail: Iraqis are being targeted for murder because they have worked for British forces.

Marie Colvin's report for the Times of April 8 speaks of desperate former workers for the British Army being turned away from the British embassy in Syria by staff who had orders not to admit any Iraqis. These brave men and women have testimonials written by British officers stating that they are at risk from jihadi violence: and yet we are still refusing to admit them to the United Kingdom.

If you feel that this is unacceptable and that Britain should prevent Iraqis from being murdered for the 'crime' of working for British troops, could you please write to your MP and ask him or her to press the Government for action. You can use the excellent website 'Write to Them' or post a letter yourself.

Please be courteous when writing to your MP. It would be a good idea to read the reports above, and cite relevant facts. We would suggest that your letter could contain the following points:

- It is morally unacceptable that Britain should abandon people who are at risk because they worked for British soldiers and diplomats.
- This country will be shamed if any more Iraqis are murdered for the 'crime' of having supported UK forces.
- Iraqis who worked for British forces should not be told to leave Iraq and throw themselves on the mercy of United Nations relief agencies in Arab countries: these agencies are already being overwhelmed by the outflow of Iraqi refugees, and Iraqi refugees who have worked for British diplomats or troops may well be targeted by local jihadists.
- There is plentiful evidence that armed groups in Iraq kill the families of those they consider 'enemies': for this reason we must extend the right of asylum to the families of those who worked for us.
- It is entirely practical for this country's troops in Iraq, and its embassies in neighbouring countries, to take in Iraqis who have worked for us and fly them to the UK. Indeed, there is already considerable anger among British servicemen that Iraqis are being abandoned in this way.
- This country is large enough and rich enough to accommodate several thousand Iraqi refugees. Denmark has already given asylum to all 200 Iraqis who worked for its smaller occupying force.
- It does not matter what your MP's views (or what your views) are on the invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq. People who risked their lives for this country's soldiers are now being abandoned by the British Government. Their lives can and must be saved by their being granted the right of asylum in this country.
- This policy should be implemented regardless of whether British soldiers stay in Iraq or are soon withdrawn. But it must be introduced soon: applications for asylum cannot be processed in a lengthy fashion, as the security situation in Basra is deteriorating rapidly, and delay is likely to lead to further killings of Iraqis who worked for British troops.

Please consider putting this appeal on your blog.

Cory

It seems that everyone is on Facebook nowadays. Even Oxford Dons. The Times reported that:

Staff at Oxford University are searching the website, collecting photographs of students who they say have broken rules on post-examination celebrations, and handing down fines. The student union has branded the move a “disgraceful” intrusion into privacy and has e-mailed every common room advising how to prevent dons viewing the photographs.

I have some sympathy for the students. However, surely you don't simply assume that university authorities will ignore your drunken escapades if they are posted on one of the world's biggest social networking sites? It is bizarre that university employees had the time and the motive to search through the Facebook accounts of thousands of students just to find a few incriminating photos (though you have to admire their dedication).

Now that Facebook has morphed from being mainly populated by students (as it was when I joined in November) to housing thousands of other non-studenty types, even politicians and journalists, it seems foolish to post every silly drunken photo and assume it's only your student friends will see them. As the Times article continues:

A survey of 600 British companies revealed that one in five had logged on to Facebook and other networking websites to vet potential employees. Jacqueline Thomson, from public relations firm Brands2Life, said that she had turned down one applicant after learning that he had used Facebook “to criticise previous employers and discuss company information”

I also really like this one:

Brad Karsh, a US career consultant, turned down a job applicant after reading on Facebook that his interests were “smokin’ blunts with the homies” and “shooting caps into whitie”

That must have been a rather easy decision to make. Either what the applicant said was true, in which case you may not want to share a desk with him, or he had a very bad sense of humour, which is surely an equally viable reason to refuse the "blunt smokin' homie" a job. I also remember seeing another article in which an employer checked a prospective work experience candidate's profile, only to find he was naked in his profile picture. Nice.

The moral of the story must be: remove any incriminating evidence from your profile. If you have to do silly things, don't broadcast it to the rest of the world (and any potential employers, for that matter).

Cory

The Telegraph on their former owner being convicted of fraud:

Conrad Black case lacked evidence, say jurors

Conrad Black was found not guilty on the majority of fraud charges against him because of the lack of “paper evidence”, one of the jurors in the case said.

Of course, he was still guilty of three counts of fraud. Which, at the time of writing, is three more than both me and Adam combined. There is also the fact that perhaps if one was going to commit major fraud, one wouldn't write all the evidence down. But meh.

The news did make me giggle though. Not in the same league as the news as Alan Johnston's release, but marvellous nonetheless.

Cory

Being oop North I haven't been campaigning in Ealing for the by-election. However, it seems the Tory candidate is doing all the campaigning for me, by donating £4800 at a Labour party fundraising dinner only last month.

No, I don't understand either. Presumably this means Tony Lit is either a) Dishonest [can't have told the selection committee about this, can he?] or b) foolish, or possibly c) unsure; none of which are attributes I'd welcome in a prospective MP.

Nevertheless, the Tory attack-blogs have gone on the case. Take Iain Dale, for instance:

I doubt whether the donation has lost him a single vote. Indeed, the blanket media coverage has raised his profile enormously - his picture is everywhere in today's papers. You could easily argue that the coverage is a boost. Personally, I cannot imagine why any Conservative would want to attend a Labour Party event, but we should remember it was an Asian business 'do', and a media organisation like Sunrise presumably has good reason to be impartial in its political relations.

Of course, if Tony Lit really did have good reason to be impartial in his political relations, I'm not sure standing for Parliament as a Conservative candidate is the best way to go about it. And the picture is of him with Tony Blair, why would that be any good...? Still, defending the indefensible is always a thankless task.

Cory

Hello all,

apologies for the lack of posts. Compared to university, working 9-5 is rather stressful and tiring. Add to that scoring at the weekends, and I haven't had a day off for three weeks. Not good for constructive blogging, at any rate. And as can be seen, there is enough dross out there in the blogosphere without me adding to it.

For now, here are the three latest people to add us to their blogroll, and it's only fair we reciprocate:

Tom Hamilton at let's be sensible, who is also a contributer to the strangely dormant (of late) Fisking Central. Hope we see some more fisking soon.

Rob Thompson at Rob's Place

And last, but not least, The Liberal Republican.

Happy hunting,

Cory

Shoot me. I have just given up watching Question Time. That Douglas Murray bloke is too much. If I ever sound as pompous and humourless as him...

Jesus fucking christ.

In other news (because humour is desperately needed)

Watch this. Its hilarious

-posted by Adam

There will be a post this weekend. A long one about Iraq, neo-cons and the like. I feel it brewing up inside of me.

*watches everyone yawn from boredom*

Broken records sometimes play right notes.

-posted by Adam 

The BBC's Alan Johnston is free. Huzzah and Hurrah. The best news story I've heard in a long time.

Cory