The Problem Of A Promise Land...

Marked by a visit by U.S President Bush to the region, this month marks the 60th anniversary of the founding of the state of Israel. Celebrated by Jews across the world, and mourned by Arabs as al-Nakba or 'the catastrophe', the anniversary has shed new light on the original events which lead to the founding of the Jewish state, and speculation on the amount of time it might have left to remain. With Islamist group Hezbollah taking over parts of Beirut in the north, and Hamas increasing in strength and momentum in the south, peace will probably not be a luxury which the region can afford any time soon. But how do we in the west view the existence of a Jewish state in the Holy Land?

It is no secret that the plight of the Palestinians in this age of 'victim culture' has made sense to many on the British political left, and also to terror groups such as Al Qaeda, but the most astonishing development in the opposition to the Jewish state is in that of the mainstream media. The Guardian's evident hatred towards Israel is one I find the most distasteful and sickening, with an apparent desire to do as much damage to the reputation of Israel in Europe as possible. Articles written in the paper almost daily attack the operations of the IDF and Mossad, and yet make no such criticisms of rocket attacks from the Gaza strip or attempted suicide attacks indirectly funded by Iran. The mentality of the 21st century anti-Semite is one that oddly unites those of the political left, Islamists, and white supremacists, and can even seemingly be adopted by the average joe nowadays without much fuss.

This shared doctrine, which spans from opposition to Israel to perpetuated lies about the Jewish 9/11, is an inevitable consequence of the desensitisation of the world since the Holocaust. As with all conflicts and traumatising events in world history, there is a period afterwards of absolute mourning, a sense of injustice which stays for a period of living memory, or at most two to three generations. After this time however, when the people who had memory of those events are all but dying out, it seems that the taboos associated with those memories are no longer relevant. For example, to express support for Napoléon Bonaparte in mid 19th century Britain would have been seen to be almost blasphemous by the general population. Talk favourably of him in Britain today and nobody cares. We are no longer concerned by the threats of Imperial France, nor sensitive to the French Reign of Terror which saw thousands put to death by the horrific guillotine.


My personal standing on Israel has wavered over the years, as a child I grew up with huge admiration for the IDF and Mossad, even though not fully understanding the politics at the time. Upon learning of the ultranationalist Israeli Irgun which fought against the British in the 1940's my views did change for a while, however the passing of my days as an imperialist have led me to believe that the existence of Israel is a great thing. I now see it as the most important western outpost on the eastern frontier, with enough stability and national confidence to ensure the security of the eastern Mediterranean. It is, if nothing else, a cork in the neck of the Islamic world; an assurance to us that as long as it stands the world is free. As an Anglican, my mind is often on the Holy Land and what tragedies could befall it any day. I would hate to learn for example that Holy sites in Jerusalem or Bethlehem might end in the same fate as the Buddhas of Bayman under the orders of some Islamic cleric; the existence of the Jewish state is assurance that this cannot happen.

Israel's determination to survive when it is surrounded by countries that want to wipe it out cannot indefinitely continue without support from the west. We the inheritors of the modern world must ensure that the expressive sentiments of solidarity with Israel does not die from neglect, but continues on. Every day, the anti-Semitic malice of the western media recruits another free voter to its cause using perfected convincing strategies. How long before the actions of the do-gooding medio-intelligencia enable a united Islamic front to finally rid the region of the only significant non-Islamic country there, from under the watchful but placid eyes of the pointless United Nations? One only dreads to think. The problem of the promise land is of course that it is desperately wanted for the re-establishment of the promised Islamic Caliphate...

(Picture 1: Members of Hamas on parade in Gaza.)
(Picture 2: A 100,000 strong anti-Israeli protest in London, 2006.)

The Flight Against Terror...

Last week, the convictions of five young British Muslim men jailed over extremist literature were quashed by the Appeal Court. The men, all of whom had been convicted in 2007, were originally arrested for downloading extremist literature, obtaining an Al-Qaeda Manual, and for having involvement with jihadist websites, on which they adopted the names of suicide bombers. The case for the prosecution was that the five extremists had planned to go to Pakistan to receive terrorist training and then go on to fight in Afghanistan, however the requirement to prove that every shred of evidence recovered supported this accusation may have been too much for the Crown Prosecution Service.

The case for the defence was that although it was evident the men were planning to go to Pakistan, it could not be proved that the extremist material recovered by police was to be used there; and so the case had the potential to be thrown out due to supposed lack of evidence. That, mixed with the ambiguity surrounding the Terrorism Act 2000, and the institution of politically biased Judges eventually led to the men's convictions being dropped, a decision which may prove to be a mistake should any of the men go on to be part of Britain's next batch of suicide bombers. Indeed the news of this 'triumph' will ring in the ears of many would-be jihadists, sending a message clear enough to them that involving themselves in internet terrorism and downloading Al-Qaeda manuals is something which is, in terms of law, somehow acceptable.

The argument for many, in favour of the dropping of the men's convictions, is that the very freedoms of expression and freedoms of thought existent in our democracy might have been undermined had the case succeeded in the allocation of jail sentences. This 'freedom at all costs' sentiment has been the stumbling block for many who attempt anti-terror measures, and scrutiny of British security agencies became apparent most recently with the bugging of Labour MP Sadiq Khan whilst visiting a terror suspect. The allegation was that a bugging device had been placed in an area where the Mr Khan and one of his constituents, a suspected terrorist, were sat; and that the conversation the men had was recorded by security officials.

Since the allegation came to light, many MPs have expressed the view that such discussions between MPs and constituents should be private, and that recording such discussions is an infringement of individual freedoms, and should therefore be outlawed. Never before had I realised that members of Parliament, and indeed members of the public, had the right to tell security agencies what they should and shouldn't be allowed to do in terms of surveillance. Maybe they have such high standing in society, that they will also be telling MI5 what colour their building should be next painted, or indeed what brand of staplers should be used in their offices.

As an avid fan of the fictional, spy-thriller, mini-series 24, the idea that legislation could prevent a character such as Jack Bauer from bugging a suspected terrorist because that suspect was with an elected Government official, seems to me to render the whole purpose of a security agency as futile. After all, security agencies like MI5 are dedicated to discovering which members of our society actively support or engage with enemies of the United Kingdom through the use of stealth surveillance technology, not brut force or torture which is used in many other countries. For those of you who might have devoted countless hours of your life into watching the award winning 24, you will know that Special Agent Jack Bauer is no stranger to using torture in the field; fiction of this kind however enables us as a society to have a healthy understanding of such situations, from which we can base our levels of morality which formulate the zeitgeist.

The controversy surrounding the allegation also highlighted the worry of many that Britain is creeping further and further towards a surveillance-state, a prospect that, in the wrong hands, could deeply benefit a dictatorship government. The trouble here, is that we don't live in a dictatorship, but many people still don't trust intelligence agencies or the establishment; seemingly regarding them as potential threats to their individual liberties. This is a mentality formed by many years of bombardment from well aired conspiracy theorists in the media, including the likes of Mohammad Al Fayed and the ridiculous David Ike. A broad mentality which, in this war against extremism, could not have come at a worst time. Calls for limitation or banning of surveillance technology should not come as a surprise, in this age where the principles of liberty have become somewhat of a betrayer in halting the attempted prevention of terrorist activities, but nor should such requests be taken seriously.

Thankfully justice did prevail yesterday, when 37 year old Parviz Khan was jailed for life for plotting to behead a British soldier 'like a pig'. Khan, a British-born resident of Birmingham, was also secretly recorded teaching his five year old son to hate the 'Kuffar' or non-believer, by security officials. "Who do you love?" asked Khan, "I love Sheik Osama Bin Laden...Allah and Sheik Abu Hamza" replied the boy. "And who do you kill?" Khan had asked, "America, Bush I kill, Blair kill, and yeah, Kuffar" replied the boy. Khan claimed up to £20,000 a year in benefits and often boasted about himself making the non-believers 'bleed financially', saying it was the duty of every Muslim to 'take from the Kuffar'. He made his children sleep on the floor of his cold home at night, to apparently 'toughen them up' should he ever take them to fight in the mountains of Afghanistan; and is thought to be totally unsafe for release at any time in the near future due to his murderous nature and wholehearted indoctrination.

Thanks to the covert and yet effective operations of British intelligence agencies, such plots are successfully prevented all the time. If agenices are successful in this then there are concerns over the wellbeing of the suspects from liberal extremists, and if they are not successful there is widespread criticism from those same people directed at our security services. No one should realistically be exempt from surveillance in the right circumstances; after all that is how dictatorships flourish.

If anything, we should be following the examples of Israel's Mossad in the fight against home-grown Islamic extremism, instead of persistently accommodating the concerns of a few paranoid communist sympathisers into our statute books.

(Picture: Kiefer Sutherland as 24's Jack Bauer.)

A True Inspiration...

Like many across the world, I was deeply shocked and saddened at the news of Benazir Bhutto's assassination in Pakistan today. To hear of such an intelligent, strong, inspirational woman being ruthlessly murdered at the hands of such cowardly and very evil terrorist organisations has truly made me wonder whether or not the country is ready for democracy at all. It is obvious in my opinion that the countries upcoming presidential elections should be cancelled, and I genuinely hope that current President Pervez Musharraf will resume his position as General despite the wide spread critisicm he may face. Afterall pressure from America and Britain to step down his position as General of Pakistan's Army was largely done in support of Benazir Bhuttos campaign, and not I believe properly thought through.

I suppose the West have been nieve in thinking that Pakistan really could handle democracy, depsite the many assurances of Musharraf that it could not, just seeing the Presidents opposition to democratic elections as a political move to retain power over the country. But Pakistan is a country vastly unlike our own, it has existed independently for only 60 years and has little or no history of stable democracy comparible to our own. We have had centuries at perfecting democracy with much blood spent at its development and maintainence, and it is now so deeply weaved into our society and history that very few of us could imagine life without it, let alone conceive of its reforming or abolishing. Pakistan is a country not yet founded by independent historical foundation, there is nothing really to hold it together in terms of national ideology, every day Pakistans history is being written and consequently it is still open to new ideas and revoluntionary concepts, an environment in which extremists thrive. We being the West would like to think that one of these concepts could genuinly be democracy, and of course a successfully democratic Pakistan would be a truly wonderful thing, but we as a collective superpower have a duty to be realistic. Democracy as a whole has to be earned, it has to be wanted enough by a countries people to be implemented successfully and protected from those who would wish it ill. With regard to Afghanistan, this is a country which has had 260 years worth of independence, and the overall stability to sustain a successful democracy with the support of its people. It is largely a country divided by ethnicity, race, language, and tribe, but largely maintains peace through means of negotiation and compromise. Its communities are close and the once ruling extremist Taliban are slowly being defeated by Western and Afghan forces. It would seem that the people of Afghanistan are simple people that have had enough of war, they just want to support the side that can bring them peace the quickest, democratic or not. Strategically a democratically stable Afghanistan could improve the region in terms of security, and provide an all important model for the people of Pakistan and neighbouring Iran to aspire to.

It would seem from the point of view of most Westerners that the Pakistanis themselves are not doing enough to fight anti-democratic extremism. If there was, for example, an anti-democratic Christian terrorist organisation within Britain, who attacked political candidates with bombs and machine guns, they would be no doubt hounded out by vigilantes. Every man, woman, and child in Britain would be brought together by the powers that be, and encouraged to find and bring justice to such a group. We have already seen this is response to the rise of fascists in Britain, who in fact oppose our democracy altogether, and are subsequently hunted down by the press and members of the public to be exposed as the subversives that they are, even those who are not necessarily violent. The IRA however could not be seen in this light, as the IRA effectively operated outside of Britain, smuggling weapons and terrorists within our borders to specifically attack. They were also fighting for supposed freedom of the island of Ireland, not the destabilisation of British democracy. Pakistan has large numbers of seemingly uncontested terrorist organisations operating and attacking from within its borders, who essentially want Pakistan to submit to a regime similar to that of Taliban ruled Afghanistan, in which the country was ruled entirely by Islamic Sharia law.

With Benazir Bhutto gone, President Musharraf must reclaim his status as General in order to see Pakistan protected from the ever growing extremist threat. His declaring of Pakistan as being in a state of emergency only a few months ago was the type of action which proves he is willing and competent enough to prevent extremists taking control of the country. Should Musharraf ever step down or in turn be assassinated, Pakistan's nuclear capabilities could be entrusted to anyone, and we know from past experience that there are always worse people lurking in the background. Musharraf is no threat to the West, in fact i'm sure he admires our democratic structure as a society, and for any Western government to oppose decisions made by him from now on would be folly. If anything we should support a man who, although may not have been democratically elected, has the military strength and will to control the population of his country. It would seem that for now Pakistan must conform to its current state in order to survive.

Benazir Bhutto studied at Harvard and Oxford, and always maintained pro-western values throughout her presidency and 8 year exile. She was, in my eyes, a perfect candidate to share power with for Musharraf over the ruling of Pakistan, and a great personal inspiration. She often showed her support for pro-western values within the British Muslim community, readily appearing on programmes such as Question Time, Newsnight and BBC News 24, and had she have stayed in the United Kingdom could have taught our government a think or two about community cohesion. No doubt that her strength, pro-western values and intelligence, combined with Musharrafs power and military strength, might have given Pakistan a better chance in fighting extremism and paving the way for future democracy. I just hope that the tragedy of todays horrific events will hit home to many ordinary Pakistanis that they themselves must conquer the extremism within their country if they wish to see Pakistan be taken seriously as a world player.

God bless you Benazir Bhutto, may your soul rest in peace...

This Week...Love & Hate.

For about a year or so now I have been watching, almost incessantly, BBC1's This Week, usually in the hope that it will fill my hunger for political banter last thing on a Thursday night. Stay put after BBC1's Question Time and you will be met by Andrew Neil, cracking well rehearsed quips about the 'Blue Nun' and of course our 'Great Leader' (A.K.A- Gordon Brown), and met by the sight of Dianne Abbott and Micheal Portillo sat comfortably on a dark mauve sofa. It would not be wrong to say that their innocent chuckling and gleaming facial expressions has always brought a spark of relaxation and light heartedness to the show, whether or not the current events of the week merit it. There is however an almost non-serious underlayer to the comments of the trio in reaction to some guest reports on the show, and an almost zealous criticism expressed by them that seems purely to be based on a matter of personal achievement rather than on reasonable argument. Of course politics can be relaxed, and it's good to see particular shows taking a different stace on current affairs, but surely the lighthearted atmosphere should stay lighthearted rather than turning into another fierce Paxman style interview.

This weeks edition of the show featured bestselling author and former Islamic radical Ed Hussain, who basically did his take on the week. His report began with scenes from the streets of Kartoum, with members of the Sudanese public holding up placards and weapons calling for the death of British teacher Gillian Gibbons. His report praised the successful actions of Lord Ahmed and Baroness Warsi for their securing of her safe release, but urged the wider Islamic community in Britain to speak out more often against similar cases across the Islamic world. One of his main points was that although thousands of people from Britain each year go to Saudi Arabia to worship in places like Mecca and Mdina, when women are refused entry to certain areas on cultural grounds, the British nationals just accept it and do not speak out against the laws which are soley based on cultural, rather than Islamic, traditions. His main point was that British Muslims should know where they are from and be proud to be British, and that it took him a journey throughout the Middle-East, as a young radical, to finally discover that his place was Britain, and not the Islamic world state for which he had so long strived for. Watching Ed Hussains report really inspired me as a promoter of an intergrated Britain, and seeing an ex-radical like himself who now was so in touch with modern British values, almost made me think that he should be working for the Government on such matters. Fingers crossed Santa will be bringing me his book 'The Islamist' this Christmas.

Back to 'This Week' though, and Ed sat before the trio hoping to answer some questions and to go into more depth about his report as most guests do. He began to elaborate about what had radicalised him in his teens, and indeed what he believed other young muslims were feeling with particular regard to identity. He began to critisise the British Islamic community for not quite doing enough to prevent and condemn the preaching of extremists, and urged them passionately to do so with the realisation that they are British. Diane sat there cynically, as she usually does at this point of the show, and when asked what she thought about the report began to attack the views of Hussain. She was adamant that "in her constinuency" no such sects had infiltrated the Islamic community, and that "on the ground" people were happily living side by side with there fellow neighbours without any problem. "I dont really recognsie your very gloomy prognosis" she went on, commenting that because her muslim constituents had "womens projects", they were not part of the underlying problem highlighted by Hussain. She seemed to attack Hussain in a manner I thought quite rude and thoroughly offensive. The whole thing mimikced a broadcast earlier in the year when Ms Abbott told Peter Hitchens live on television that she thought his views were similar to that of the BNP, potentially destroying his career in one instant. Michael Portillo at this point tried to defend Mr Hussain and shift the emphasis onto his own personal views by spouting another obvious, highly agreeable comment almost to show his unhindered tantering to Diane. The debate however continued with Diane patronising Hussain as he began to quote the comments of MI5s Director Genral Johnathan Edmuds (who 3 weeks ago stated that an estimated 4,ooo British Muslims have already been radicalised) by simply smiling and shaking her head. Despite her cynisism and continued arrogance Hussain told Abbott that he had infact been radicalised in London and that he believes many muslims, even if not belonging to specific groups, share the mind set of separatism. He hit the nail on the head when he said to Abbott "There is a problem, and there's no point pussyfooting around the issue, what you do then is you allow that mind set to fester".

I mean for heavens sake, here is a man with experience of the extremo-Islamic movement in Britain being seriously contested by an arrogant Labour-rebel MP on matters which she can hardly comment on in comparison. The challenging of Hussains views were clear to me to be entirely political, clearly making sure that anybody from her constituency who also disagreed with his report would be voting her in at the next election. The debate continued further before Andrew Neil then ended it by making some sarcastic comment to Hussain, whom I thought had made his case very well.

To have such intellectuals on the show has undoubtably raised the kudos of the programme, but surely they have a responsibility to treat guests with a little more respect, even if they don't entirely agree with their personal views. Funny how guests like Toyah Wilcox, who featured at the end of the show, with a less controversial report seem to get treated with more respect by the trio. Such a love hate relationship I have for This Week, and even though broadcasts like last nights seem to be becoming more and more common, the non-inclusion of such guest reporters would be a great tragedy. I suppose guests on the show have to face a certain amount of criticism, more than anything to acquire credibility, afterall most political critics in society are widely known about thanks to such programmes.

Overall I would have to say that the comical performance of Andrew Neil, and the cheery smiles of Portillo and Abbott are a sort of addictive torture for me. This liberal specialist programme with a high value guests list is both my lover and my loathing.

Think i'll keep watching...for now...