Israel has banned the United Arab List and Balad from the Knesset. Banned, that is, two Arab parties which call for a two state solution and so recognise Israel’s existence - on the grounds that they don’t recognise Israel.

They have thus exiled Israeli Arabs from mainstream democratic politics. The exiled and disenfranchised tend to move to extremes, as they’re the only place to go.

You know what the available extreme is for the Palestinians. Hamas must be grateful.

(Hat-tip: Jim)

Somehow I imagine that this  isn’t quite so funny for those on the receiving end.

Rather like something you’d expect to find at the Onion…

Inspired by Bensix I offer the following:

Aaronovitch: You should be very, very careful about comparing people to the Nazis. Incidentally, Hamas = Nazis.

The one merit of the recent attacks against the Gazan Palestinians has been that any doubts regarding the Israeli government’s motivations have been torn aside, any illusions that might have lingered being brutally dispelled. At very least Palestinian life is seen as a useful political tool, far more likely it is inherently seen as a threat which requires containment or eradication.

There is clearly no longer much will towards a Two State Solution from Kadima, either way. If this was the case then we would be seeing IDF troops engaged in purging the West Bank of settlers. As it is they are occupied attempting to topple a democratically elected government, as is now the stated aim of the Israeli government. This makes it abundantly clear that the Israelis are committed to the destruction of only organisation which could possibly be capable of constructing a separate Palestinian state.

It takes nationalists to build a nation. If not Hamas then there simply exists no alternative. Anyone who imagines the clinically corrupt kleptocrats of Fatah are potential forgers of an independent Palestine has clearly not examined their record, and knows a good deal less about them than do the Palestinians. 

Purportedly the reasoning for this dedication to removing Hamas from power is to return moderates to power. This presumes that a moderate organisation (which presently exists only within the fantasy of squeamish westerners) would spring into existence after the Palestinians have endured the notoriously moderating experiences of heavy bombing, starvation, tank attacks and the use of chemical weaponry against its civilian populace.

A far likelier consequence will be the rise of the Salafists, a faction that deem Hamas overly soft.

I will not insult the intelligence of the Israeli politico-military establishment by presuming that they are unaware of this. That they do not realise the consequence of bombing mosques and shelling schools will be radicalisation instead of liberalisation. After all, this was precisely the outcome of their tactics previously when they attacked Fatah and saw them replaced with Hamas. I refuse to accept that the decision makers are ignorant imbeciles and accordingly the only conclusion possible to draw is that the sort of organisation which will not offer decade long ceasefires is the sort that they want in power.

This of course offers pretext to continue using the army upon the Palestinians instead of the West Bank settlers, with the former move being one which will shore up support for the government and the latter one which would threaten to topple it.

But what else does the stated intention of removing Hamas from power tell us? That even the supposed “centrists” of Kadima do not care for democracy. Hamas have a strong electoral mandate and to the Israeli government this is meaningless. They are not concerned with the wishes of the Palestinian and the outcome of the elections are not acceptable save when parties to their liking take power.

Obvious enough, and something which many have argued for a long time. But what are the wider implications? Well together these facts (that they would rather attack Palestinians than remove the West Bank settlers, and that they have no concern for the votes of Palestinians) give us a clear indication of the future: unless the West Bank is purged a Palestinian majority will arise shortly. It has become clear that the Israeli Right is too strong and the will of the centrists (assuming that they do not share the right’s wishes) is too weak. The West Bank will remain occupied territories.

From this point Israel is left the following three options:

1) Implement apartheid proper and deny all arabs votes.

2) Ethnically cleanse until a Jewish majority is maintained.

3) Accept the end of Israel as a Jewish state.

Now from the recent evidence we have been given by the Israeli government, which of these options do you imagine they will opt for? Either of the former two, it should be clear, would be unsurprising. Both is conceivable. I know only that it will not be the latter.

But whether they implement the first or second, whether the Israeli centre holds against the right or fails to, the end of Israeli democracy approaches. The only way it can be sustained is through further ethnic cleansing of the type that originally birthed the state. It only remains to be seen if America will back the Zionist project to the hilt.

The following proposal is vile:

THE Home Office has quietly adopted a new plan to allow police across Britain routinely to hack into people’s personal computers without a warrant.

The move, which follows a decision by the European Union’s council of ministers in Brussels, has angered civil liberties groups and opposition MPs. They described it as a sinister extension of the surveillance state which drives “a coach and horses” through privacy laws.

The hacking is known as “remote searching”. It allows police or MI5 officers who may be hundreds of miles away to examine covertly the hard drive of someone’s PC at his home, office or hotel room.

Material gathered in this way includes the content of all e-mails, web-browsing habits and instant messaging.

Under the Brussels edict, police across the EU have been given the green light to expand the implementation of a rarely used power involving warrantless intrusive surveillance of private property. The strategy will allow French, German and other EU forces to ask British officers to hack into someone’s UK computer and pass over any material gleaned.

That’s the equivalent of allowing a policeman into every living room to listen to every conversation, without a warrant. The vagueness of the legislation simply invites abuse. Police may indulge in this espionage if they “believe” it’s “proportionate”; that is, whenever they feel like it. There is no check on this power, and so no check on its abuse.

And the idea comes from the EU Council of Ministers - which means, if previous experience is anything to go by, it’ll be quite hard to shift. Are they really trying to put the entire internet off the entire institution?

Excellent coverage of events from Al-Jazeera. The BBC instead opted to focus upon the low drama of the day, although the police setting themselves upon protestors making their way from the city centre to the Kensington Israeli Embassy is worth mentioning. Apparently Galloway was amongst the beaten, a few SWP members were hospitalised. Doubtless certain elements are applauding this thuggery.

Anyway, I turned up around half an hour late but things were still immensely busy. The turn out was quite simply massive, in the tens of thousands. We filled the entire square and then overflowed

I didn’t get to listen to many speakers (Galloway’s speech was forgettable and a young Palestinian/Briton declared Israel an “Illegal state”, but that’s about all I caught sight of) besides the purged man Rees, who was introduced as “The delegate to Cairo” since he was unceremoniously dumped from the SWP Central Committee. His speech conspiciously failed to mention socialism a single time, but the same was true of the few others I heard.

(more…)

Briefly; this won’t work. Deploying a mechanised block designed solely for slaughter in a neighbourhood alienates everyone in the neighbourhood. Even if you have a specific target, it looks as though you threaten everyone, because it’s so loud and intimidating.

Most Gazans will thus perceive themselves as under threat. They will turn to those who offer to protect them; here, Hamas.

Hamas will then have yet more fleshy fodder to throw into a vicious ground war with the IDF. This will be particularly bloody, given the degree to which Gaza resembles a warren designed for guerilla fighting. A long and ugly struggle will follow.

This could end in a very few ways. The ground war could go on and on and on and be reduced to a a stagnant quagmire. The IDF could slaughter so many Gazans that any will to resist is sapped and the strip is annexed; violence inevitably follows from the West Bank. Or the IDF could suffer a setback, withdraw, and the old stand-off could resume.

None of these will help anyone involved.

Or: My Not So Simple Solution

(Given that I support the continued presence of Hamas as government of the Gaza Strip I thought it was worthwhile to explore the position and nature of the group. This originally occurred as part of a debate here on Freddie’s excellent website. Personally I am still considering my response, as this is a remarkably tricky issue for an internationalist, as I accept the “right” of no state, Jewish or otherwise, to exist and deem separation of humanity into states the hazardous incarnation of unneccessary division (although it could well be argued in this instance that that division is far more hazardous unincarnated &  will exist in one form or the other intractably. I remain unconvinced by the argument that we must embrace liberal nationalism in order to argue internationalism at a later date, however). But since as far as I can tell both the “Two State” and any other solutions are an impossibility owing to the strength of the Israeli right this is all, as far as I am concerned, still within the realm of fantasy.

This should be considered, then, as a piece pursuing and exploring, if not embracing and accepting, the logic of Two States.)

Rudiments:

Hamas has offered a decade of peace should Israel retreat to the 1967 borders. That isn’t an extremist demand, it’s about as much as Palestine would need to become a viable state. If Israel agrees to these terms it may save itself, if not it is left with a choice between comprimising one core element of its existence (democracy) and another (Jewish identity).

Continuance:

Although I disagree with much of it this article outlines why that is unlikely to happen, no matter how much it needs to:

The Israeli Right simply do not want a Palestinian state. The very idea of it is detestable to them, and has been since they bought into the entire “There are no Palestinians save us” line and started talking about Yasser Arafat being Egyptian a lot.

That much is understandable: if they fail in denying the legitimacy of the Palestinians their position becomes remarkably intellectually unsteady, as the arguments for the injustice of the notorious “right to return” are rather poor. If there are Palestinians then protecting Israel’s pride, along perhaps with its future, becomes a highly tricky to sustain. Just you try reconciling your verging-on-mystical bond to your nation with the recent history of your love beginning with a massive act of ethnic cleansing.

It must be understood that to the hard-core Zionists, Palestine is such a grand problem that it must be deemed not to exist. Likewise, Palastinians.

Not that things are all that easier for the less extreme, with barely any in Israel (save the Arabs) arguing in favour of returning rights. Irrespective of this matter it is not going to be easy to overwhelm the right and cleanse the West Bank of settlers (its them or the Palestinians, and I know who there are more of). This places quite a burden upon the young country, which will need to overcome fierce civil strife to implement the Two State vision, or else leave the illegal settlers to die. Israel has to do quite a lot to prevent this, but such is the burden of power. Furthermore, this should be seen as a matter of self preservation rather than a purely selfless sacrifice.

Despite Hamas being a foul bunch it takes nationalists to make a nation. If you imagine the corrupt embezzlers of Fatah could achieve as much you clearly know less than the average Palestinian.

So there we have it: the two state solution is kept out of reach by the Israeli right. The Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades are no end of help to them, there is no doubt about that, but Hamas is ultimately a group which wishes for the establishment of a separate and distinct state. There is no other organisation in a fit state for pulling off so vast a feat as creating a contemporary nation-state out of the material available.

And there are severe doubts about them, but they’re the best we have.

Unfortunately nasty characters are often all we have when it comes to such a nasty environment (see also: the only honest Zionists around being raging sociopath Machiavellians). I can’t pretend to like it, but if you imagine that bombing the Gaza Strip until its inhabitants are thoroughly brutalised is going to trigger a resurgence in liberal nationalism then I would ask you for a historical precedent for that sort of a transformation.

Otherwise, the empirical data before us suggests that Hamas’ grip around Gaza will only be tightened. The embittered and grieving will become further footsoldiers, rockets will continue to fly and our delightful cycle shall continue.

Turning up hideously late to things is rather my calling card, as at least one of my collaborators is fully aware. Accordingly it was with some concern that I turned up to the protest against the recent and on-going Israeli action against the Gaza Strip, which was held for the second consecutive day outside the Israeli embassy, was agains yesterday at 2PM will be held for the fourth time at the same time.

The crowd was largely Muslim, with a heavy grouping towards the centre pressing against the police who seemed to be pretty much devoid of any other faction, excepting a single person waving a red flag marked with the hammer and sickle. I was in conversation with a late middle aged Asian man who wryly remarked “Which one?” when I mentioned the presence of the “Communist Party” the flag announced, alerting me to the fact I was speaking to a kindred spirit. Apparently he had been a part of a collectivist group in Iran, as well as one of the endless legion of left wing groups in Britain (I confess that I have forgotten the name of both, quite shockingly, although I believe the latter might have been the SWP).

He told me that he thought the reason no group would ever get anywhere was their excessive bureaucracy and absolute alientation with their membership. It is impossible to implement socialism, he said, without a democratic organisation attempting to introduce it.

Although they find it impossible to get anywhere beyond a miniscule groove the far-left groups in attendence also show a remarkable tendency to avoid death, as evidenced by somebody offering me an edition of Newsline. This, as I was told when asked, is the organ for the Workers Revolutionary Party. The WRP that still exists, that is, after for a time there was a split were neither was willing to lose either name and there were a pair of WRPs producing two Newslines.

I wasn’t certain if the survivors were the loyalists to the notorious molester embezzler who used to run the joint and probably should have asked.

In addition to those old timers though there was also a group I’d never heard of, and if there’s a British far-lefty group I’ve never heard of its generally because they haven’t existed for a very long time. That is certainly true of The Commune, who were founded in August/September (”There were only ten…” was the excuse given). The person handing me the leaflet described himself as a “Libertarian Socialist”, a term I had only ever heard as a euphamism for “Anarchist”. He rejected that term due to its connection to historical ideologuary, wanting to steer clear of “Bakunist faction”, “Proudhon faction” stuff, which is a tendency I often share and can appreciate entirely.

He was friends with a member of AWL, a group he left after being expected to recant his “Troops Out” views, presumably under the tenants of Democratic Centralism. His friend knew well Robin, another member of the AWL who I’d met in Cambridge during a dire Marxist note reading session which I’d expected would be more of a talk on the socialist take on global warming (something that actually interests me). Anyway, point is: the far-left is a small world.

(I could tell you about my encounter with a New Communist but to be honest they aren’t too interesting. Besides their celebration of a new Mao Museum their paper was Stalinism at its least shocking and least amusing. The man I spoke to told me that his Communist Party was the only real Communist Party, didn’t have much of an answer as to why a party with that name that had been around since 1977 hadn’t changed it yet and described Zimbabwe as “A difficult one”. Does any of that really surprise you? No, didn’t think so.)

Making my way to the other side of the protest I came across the Jews Against Zionism, a rather striking bunch given the context, but perhaps undeservedly so. Before we can get onto them, though, I should deal with the crazies:

Anything involving Israel involves the Jews and when the Jews come up certain people are utterly insane. There were four examples of this, the first being a 9/11 truther who was possibly not all that anti-semitic but was certainly a nut-job. He told me that “It was an inside job” and when I asked how exactly that was relevant to the matter at hand he replied “War on Terror”. I pointed out that the Gaza attacks were not per se part of that at all and he replied that they certainly were and…Well, it was all one big inter-connected tapestry that I couldn’t see properly. He sprouted a view events (1977 Israeli attack on USS Liberty, 9/11insidejob, Gaza attacks) and expected me to draw links, which is rather a minimalist approach to conspiracy theories really, or perhaps just a little lazy.

The second was trying to insist to a rather bemused Muslim man that they use a slogan which told the “Ruling class” Jews to return to their homes, their homes being Eastern European. Apparently having converted in the 7th century they weren’t real Jews and had no claim to Israel. He had a photocopy of an Encyclopedia Brittanica page which demonstrated as much.

The third was perhaps the most obviously deranged, wearing a rather twisted looking depiction of Christ crucified on his back dropped an early hint of this. He handed out a leaflet asserting that the “leechers” were responsible for all the wrong doing in the world and featuring on the front page a black and white photo of the IDF bundling away a crying Palestinian child. The back made a rhyme about how the “leecher usurers” had killed Christ. When I asked him to define the word “leecher” he played it coy and asked me if I knew what it meant, before saying that they were someone that would “Drain the life out of you” and that I could well be a target.

The fourth was engaged in trying to convince one of the anti-zionist jews that the bankers had caused all the woe of the world, and met with some resistance both from him and me. I pointed out that if this was all some elaborate scheme it clearly wasn’t running on course given that the financial sector is presently imploding and she replied that there are a lot of people making a lot of money out of it.

Eventually we warded her off and got talking. The perspective of the anti-zionist was that until the coming of the Messiah Jews have no claim to be the ruler of any nation. He argued that atheist zionists had “brain-washed” people into falsely believing otherwise and stated that what jews should do when people wished to purge them was to send their elders to try and convince the leaders of the area otherwise or else submit and depart.

The jews were a little aloof from the rest of the protest, in their own separate sphere. They were clearly not unwelcome though, and their presence confounded the notion that these affairs are a gaggle of frothing mouth jew-haters.

Things were not entirely peaceful, with flaming cones (filled with Socialist Workers? an AWL member speculated) being passed to the front and then promptly extinguished. But there wasn’t blood on the pavement or anything. I also suspect that the chant of “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free!” which broke out briefly, but broadly, unsettled the two staters present.

Eventually once things ended I headed with the protestors who still seemed keen on protestors, who got edged by the police down the street. For about half an hour ample opportunities to block off the whole high street abounded and were all missed. We eventually moved down the High Street until finally a combination of riot police and horseback mounted coppers (along with the standards) got us boxed in against a shopfront and refused to allow us to leave.

Robin took the opportunity to being discussions with some Muslims, including a white convert. He struggled to understand how someone not indoctrinated from birth (indeed, a former atheist) could believe such stuff. “Look around you, this is God’s creation”, we were told. We looked around us and saw a circle of policemen hemming us in.

Some idiot through a firework at the coppers but fucked it up, an Iranian film crew with an Indian presenter was harassed by the youths, implictly for being a woman (”Come on, show us your emotional side…”) and explicitly because “Mumbai was a inside-job”. After numerous attempts she finally managed to get a decent take done and was loudly applauded by all present save the police.

Eventually we were filmed, had personal details taken down, were thoroughly searched and allowed to leave. In some database or other there is now film of me asking under what pretext I could be arrested if I refuse to be filmed, which strikes me as quite delightfully meta.

Then off to the pub. With popcorn, a libertarian socialist, two Allied Workers and (sadly, but predictably) zero Muslims.

Protests for this week are as follows, please do come along:

• Wednesday 31 December, 2 - 4pm outside Israeli Embassy

• Thursday 1 January 2 - 4pm outside Israeli Embassy

• Friday 2 January 2 - 4 pm. Outside the Egyptian Embassy, . 26 South Street, London, W1K 1DW. Call for Egypt to open the border immediately.

• SATURDAY 3 JANUARY. DEMONSTRATION AND RALLY. Assemble 2pm Parliament Square, W1. Nearest tube Westminster

This one’s easy, it’s just a matter of who wants it.

Israel: Purges the settlers from the West Bank, withdraws to 1967 boundaries.

Palestinians: Stop breaking shit thenceforth.

Hamas has offered a decade of peace along those lines, Hamas are in power and hugely popular. The only obstacle is the Israeli Right being far too strong and about as keen on settlement removal as the Minute Men are on Mexicans.

Consequentially Israel is demographically unstable insofar as shortly they will have a majority of people within the state who don’t want it to exist. At that stage Israel is left with three options:

1) Self-determinate themselves.
2) Deny arabs votes, begin apartheid.
3) Ethnically cleanse.

So what’ll it be?