Sunday, June 6, 2010
Saturday, June 5, 2010
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
THE SHIP OF HATE
The flotilla of 'peace' that tried to break Israel's blockade of Gaza was forewarned and, at least on one vessel, the Mavi Marmara, came forearmed with an arsenal of weaponry ready to take on the IDF. To suggest that the IDF's response was an over reaction is tantamount to stupidity on the part of those who speak and write such drivel. Israel ordered the flotilla to enter an Israeli port where its cargo could be offloaded, examined and allowed through into Gaza, as 100,000 tons of supplies have already been allowed through over the past quarter.
My only criticism on this occasion was that the IDF should have used greater manpower than they did. They were surprised by the activists response on board the Mavi Marmara. There is now talk of another convoy setting sail, I hope the next time that Israel will learn lessons and pay careful attention to any ship they suspect carries jihadists from Turkey. But above all continue to stop these ships on behalf of your people and your nation's right to exist.
But obeying such an order would have robbed our 'peace' flotilla of much needed publicity. Besides which they came for action and action did indeed come to them. The people of peace sailing on the Mavi Marmara had their own man- made medieval armoury on board, and were ready to repulse the IDF, in order to gain publicity from a squeamish Western media held firmly in the embrace of Palestinian sentimentality.
The fact that only one ship resisted the orders of the IDF, should tell us something about the intent of those aboard the Mavi Marmara, and who they were. We have all seen the footage of Israeli soldiers being beaten with iron bars and attacked with knives; at least one petrol bomb was thrown, and an Israeli commando was thrown overboard, while some others received life threatening injuries. Having seen what the protesters were hoping to do, it is thanks to the IDF that they managed bring the situation under control before there were even more tragic deaths - but then, perhaps it was also the intention of those on board the Mavi Marmara to court martyrdom.Israel will never be given the benefit of any doubt from the rest of the world over their actions - they never do. Even their supposed allies are, as usual, less than fulsome in their support. Even America under Obama wishes that the whole episode could be swept under the carpet. If only he did not have to rely upon the Jewish vote, as all presidents need to do when an election is in the offing. But then, perhaps, in the future, the Muslim vote will prove itself just as demanding.
This so called peace flotilla was stage managed to embarrass the Israelis. The state of Israel, unlike many Western nations, will go to any length to protect their sovereignty. A thousand years of surviving within the Diaspora has taught them to protect themselves at any cost, once they had gained their homeland within the ancient boarders of Judea.
The state of Israel is here to stay; and in order to meet this end she must protect her boarders and her citizens, and in doing so may upset her allies as they seem to have done once more. But if America or the UK were surrounded by such a threat to their existence, would they tolerate any of the criticism that Israel is now forced to endure from the United Nations? Would the British army, for instance, have acted any differently under similar circumstances? Those politicians in the West must answer this question before aiming their criticism at Israel
Israel launched her attack after giving warning (which probably allowed the inmates of the 'peace' flotilla to prepare themselves). Nevertheless Israel gave her warning, which the international community would have demanded from them; and in so doing would have allowed these people of peace to arm themselves in expectation of the inevitable. If Israel had not given warning to the flotilla, can you imagine what the outcry would have been if they just sunk it?
Israel will hopefully always defend their rightful and natural boarders against all comers. I will always support and admire the Jewish people within the Diaspora as well as the state of Israel . Historically, the Jewish people have always managed to accommodate their loathing from whomsoever they were forced to live amongst, in order to survive until they found their own state.
We hear all the time about a two state solution to the Middle East, but the West must know by now that Hamas seeks no such thing. They seek only the dismantling of the Israeli state and its replacement with an Islamic state of Palestine. Those Palestinians on the West Bank would indeed accommodate a two state solution, but would argue over the boundaries of such states. Either option is fraught with difficulties, but until such an accommodation is arrived at - one which both the Israeli and Palestinian people can agree upon, then Israel has every right to protect her boarders as they now stand.
Those people on board the Mavi Marmara were not protesting on behalf of all Palestinians, but in support of the jihadists of Hamas. This ill named 'peace convoy' should never have left port in the first place. Israel had its own arrangement for allowing supplies into the Gaza strip, and this only proved necessary in order to stop the smuggling of ever more sophisticated weaponry from states such as Iran.
My only criticism on this occasion was that the IDF should have used greater manpower than they did. They were surprised by the activists response on board the Mavi Marmara. There is now talk of another convoy setting sail, I hope the next time that Israel will learn lessons and pay careful attention to any ship they suspect carries jihadists from Turkey. But above all continue to stop these ships on behalf of your people and your nation's right to exist.
Sunday, May 30, 2010
NOT SO PROUD TO BE GAY
David Laws had to resign because he took (according to the Daily Telegraph) £40,000 illegally from the public purse . By promising to pay back whatever the amount he has taken turns out to be, he has surely, at the very least, compromised any claim of innocence.
The only relevant matter in all of this is the fraudulent expenses claim. David Laws sexuality has only a prurient interest to the public, but no doubt their are tabloids out there that are all too ready to feed that interest.
Many of those apologists of David Laws who are now seeking to minimise what he did by suggesting that his Double First should in some way act as a protective moat around his past, present, and future conduct; were the same apologists, as I remember, that had very little charity within them for the fraudsters of the last parliament. Many waxed purple (usually with rage) about the need to clean up parliament; to sweep away the decaying standards of behaviour, and bring a new broom of reform to bare.
David Laws had been in office for little more than two weeks, yet he was fast attaining the status of elder statesmen. The Lord only knows to what heights he would have reached after a month; such was the adoration for this much regarded intellect. He was to be the scythe that was to rid us of our deficit. He had a blue print for recovery worked out. It appears that, rather than being a Liberal Democrat, David Laws was, at heart, a Tory. Which is why so many of them in the press and on the web have sought to whitewash his financial shenanigans, while reprimanding similar behaviour within the last parliament.
Why should a millionaire care about the petty cash of expenses when he was getting a salary as an MP? Why should he try to work the system? He has said he came into politics, to serve the public - a duty if you like. For which he was quite rightly given a salary. So why did this man raid the petty cash?
The more I learn of David Laws behaviour, the more I come to believe that his homosexuality played and important part. His anxiety of being outed seems to have been his primary fear. To this extent, and only to this extent, does his sexuality have a part to play.
I believe David Laws was a liberal out of fear rather than conviction. I believe intellectually he was, and had always been a Tory. But he felt at home in the liberal tent where, even if he were 'found out', the party would rally round. If only David Laws could have appreciated how the nature of his sexuality would have advanced him in his career within whatever party he settled for in modern Britain.
But traditionally, the Tory party, through its rank and file of so called 'old reactionaries', would have halted his political progress. It was not conservatism that drove David Laws into the arms of liberalism, but his sexuality. But above everything else, even in this day and age, David Law, it seems, feared discovery more than death, and this is sad because it implies his family may have been unaware of his sexuality. A family (without sounding to much like a agony aunt) he cares very much for. David Laws had to go. He had to pay in the same way that less, shall we say, comfortably well off members had to pay in the last parliament
David Laws has to pay the price, not for his sexuality, but because he raided the public purse illegally after demanding from the rest of us a program of austerity. A programme which, however strict, David Laws will, because of his manipulative behaviour and personal wealth, be free from financial hardship - and this should be the end of the matter.
The only relevant matter in all of this is the fraudulent expenses claim. David Laws sexuality has only a prurient interest to the public, but no doubt their are tabloids out there that are all too ready to feed that interest.
Many of those apologists of David Laws who are now seeking to minimise what he did by suggesting that his Double First should in some way act as a protective moat around his past, present, and future conduct; were the same apologists, as I remember, that had very little charity within them for the fraudsters of the last parliament. Many waxed purple (usually with rage) about the need to clean up parliament; to sweep away the decaying standards of behaviour, and bring a new broom of reform to bare.
David Laws had been in office for little more than two weeks, yet he was fast attaining the status of elder statesmen. The Lord only knows to what heights he would have reached after a month; such was the adoration for this much regarded intellect. He was to be the scythe that was to rid us of our deficit. He had a blue print for recovery worked out. It appears that, rather than being a Liberal Democrat, David Laws was, at heart, a Tory. Which is why so many of them in the press and on the web have sought to whitewash his financial shenanigans, while reprimanding similar behaviour within the last parliament.
Why should a millionaire care about the petty cash of expenses when he was getting a salary as an MP? Why should he try to work the system? He has said he came into politics, to serve the public - a duty if you like. For which he was quite rightly given a salary. So why did this man raid the petty cash?
The more I learn of David Laws behaviour, the more I come to believe that his homosexuality played and important part. His anxiety of being outed seems to have been his primary fear. To this extent, and only to this extent, does his sexuality have a part to play.
I believe David Laws was a liberal out of fear rather than conviction. I believe intellectually he was, and had always been a Tory. But he felt at home in the liberal tent where, even if he were 'found out', the party would rally round. If only David Laws could have appreciated how the nature of his sexuality would have advanced him in his career within whatever party he settled for in modern Britain.
But traditionally, the Tory party, through its rank and file of so called 'old reactionaries', would have halted his political progress. It was not conservatism that drove David Laws into the arms of liberalism, but his sexuality. But above everything else, even in this day and age, David Law, it seems, feared discovery more than death, and this is sad because it implies his family may have been unaware of his sexuality. A family (without sounding to much like a agony aunt) he cares very much for. David Laws had to go. He had to pay in the same way that less, shall we say, comfortably well off members had to pay in the last parliament
David Laws has to pay the price, not for his sexuality, but because he raided the public purse illegally after demanding from the rest of us a program of austerity. A programme which, however strict, David Laws will, because of his manipulative behaviour and personal wealth, be free from financial hardship - and this should be the end of the matter.
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)