Sticks and Stones

The United Nations is often (although not always) ineffectual, time wasting, spineless and bureaucratic. We all know that. But perhaps the United Nations would do better for itself if it actually sought to solve the real issues facing our world and not waste a disproportionate amount of its time slating Israel.

Issues such as genocide in Sudan, covert nuclear proliferation in DPR Korea and Iran and the ruins of Iraq collectively occupy a fraction of the UN resolutions passed on issues surrounding the Syrian Golan, the Palestinian territories and the future of Jerusalem.

Sure, these are questions that need dealing with. But why do they merit any more UN time than any other issue at all? Israel is one of the most diplomatically isolated countries in the world, and the UN instead of being an international forum to build closer links between nations with differences has become an instrument of unfair isolation and condemnation.

1 Comment

Senator Hillary Clinton won the Israel vote in the Democrats Abroad Global Primary, but was defeated in the international race by Senator Barack Obama, who captured the majority of the votes cast by American expatriates who voted in the Democratic Global Primary held earlier this month.

Israel, which is home to an estimated 200,000 U.S. Citizens, is considered to be an important overseas vote, not least because of the view that the concencus of opinion in Israel may very well be reflected in the Jewish and ‘Israel lobby’ vote in the U.S.

As Clinton’s campaign has seen a sharp decline since Super-Tuesday, the race between Clinton and Obama has sharpened and a number of Clinton campaign operatives have sent around negative material about Obama’s relations with Israel, according to Newsweek. The emails have been said to attack notable Obama advisors such as Zbigniew Brzezinski, who endorsed a a book, called “The Israel Lobby,” which blames many U.S. foreign-policy problems on Washington’s ties to Israel.

In addition to Brzezinski, other Obama advisers such as Rob Malley, a negotiator at the 2000 Camp David talks (who has since written articles sympathetic to the Palestinian point of view) has been mentioned. Obama’s relationship with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the former pastor at Obama’s Trinity Church in Chicago has also been cited too, given that he is a notable critic of Israel. A publication run by his daughter, called ‘Trumpet’ gave an award for “greatness” to Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, who once called Judaism a “bloodsucking religion.” That said, Obama has stated his objection to the award since talk of the matter surfaced.

An advisor to Obama commented that “there’s an increased number of these attack going around in direct correlation to Barack’s strength in the primaries and caucuses.” Obama has successfully fought off Clinton, to gain support among Jewish voters in California, Connecticut and Massachusetts whilst Clinton has won in New York, New Jersey and Maryland. Obama also has responded to recent attacks linking Obama to Brzezinski, saying: “I do not share his views with respect to Israel. I have said so clearly and unequivocally. He’s not one of my key advisers. I’ve had lunch with him once. I’ve exchanged e-mails with him maybe three times.”

Whilst AIPAC have maintained that Obama’s voting record and public pronouncements paint him squarely as an Israel supporter, Senators Clinton and Republican front-runner, Senator John McCain as well as possible independent candidate Mayor Michael Bloomberg are considered to be more pro-Israel, according to Israeli newspaper, Haaretz.

Senator Clinton has been keen to remind voters that Obama has stated his willingness, if President, to engage in talks with the Iranian regime whilst Danny Ayalon, Israel’s former ambassador to the USA, says Iran would exploit Obama’s gullibility and race ahead with a nuclear program.

Obama’s campaign looks set to face questioning on the issue of Israel, unless he can dispel rumours, being circulated by Clinton and her advisors.

2 Comments

This week, following the convictions of two high profile murderers using DNA evidence, senior police officials have called for the introduction of a national DNA database in the UK. The mandatory database would include the genetic code of all residents and visitors to the UK, regardless of innocence or guilt. The Government was quick to dismiss the suggestion, and I am inclined to support their decision.

It is revealing that the Home Office raised mostly practical concerns with the proposed scheme. Aside from the huge potential cost, they seemed to have realised that the public is becoming distinctly displeased with their losing of data on a truly impressive scale. Storing the DNA information of everyone in the country (even tourists) would, needless to say, pose serious problems were the information to get into criminally-minded hands. Aside from the (not improbable) possibility of the data accidentally being mislaid, we ought to be wary of who would have apparently legitimate access to the data. In early 2007, five civil servants who operated the database were arrested on charges of trying to steal information. The prospect of information loss, then, is not wholly unimaginable.

Even if the Government have learnt from their mistakes in data security, the so-called ethical issues are worrying nonetheless. It is all too easy to cry ‘civil liberties’ as an all-purpose, throwaway remark. Nevertheless, we are not unjustified in maintaining an inexorable opposition to being forced to give our details to such a database. It would erode both our privacy and our position as free individuals in a nation which has always prided itself in peoples’ right to be free from the prying eyes of the state.

Yet there is more to fear than an instinctive dislike. With a government which already seems bent on imprisoning innocent people who somehow have a predisposition to crime, we should be very worried about potential ‘genetic profiling’, even if it is only a distant worry. That it is becoming increasingly possible to uncover the predispositions and characteristics of a person from their DNA alone could make it a devastating weapon for anyone who wanted to weed out potential villains. These would not be thought crimes; worse, they would be genetic crimes: one could be guilty merely of having a genetic propensity to be evil. Once information is collected, it seems, there is no turning back.

Finally, the alarming chance for anomalies with the technology the database would use (Low Copy Number testing) is too great to detail here, but means that it will not stand as evidence in a US court. Reliance on such an unreliable system by the police could in practice hinder the chances of successful prosecutions in important cases.

It is not often that this Government decides in favour of our civil liberties. We should be mighty thankful therefore, that on this lonely occasion, it has.

No Comments

In August 2001 I stood at the top of the World Trade Center. It was a moment I remember because it was an exhilarating experience: being so high up, gazing down at New York. The city looked so peaceful and likeable so when I came home just two weeks after returning from the USA and turned on CNN I was horrified by what I saw. Like a newly appalled America I wondered ‘Why?!’ I wanted to know why Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Osama Bin Laden thought it was their duty from Allah to murder 2,974 people. Dad has always been hostile to religion; he wrote in support of Rushdie after the fatwa was issued, and Mom was a pacifist Buddhist: so the idea of peace being fundamental to religion seemed normal to me. But we all saw something very different on that Tuesday morning; and now we find that not only are individuals and groups intent on destroying the West, but whole countries. So once again we must ask: Why?

With the exception of Judaism, every religion says that scripture, revelation, and religious experiences should determine what laws we live under. Examples of this include the Ten Commandments in Christianity and the Pancasila in Buddhism. Considering God is believed to be the ultimate perfection, there should be no issue with using his commandments to govern the world because they are words of an omniscient and omnibenevolent being. We all agree that we should not murder, or steal, or commit adultery. So it appears there is no moral conflict between what we believe to be morally good and what is written in holy texts.

However, despite the fact that most of the edicts presented to us make appear morally sound and therefore corroborate our own moral sensibilities, many appear to be entirely immoral. Exodus 12:29 ‘At midnight the Lord struck down all the firstborn in Egypt.’ If we read this as literally the action of God, the inherent immorality of it causes concern. Why should we allow a God who slays innocent boys and animals for the crime of the Pharaoh, to be involved in our self-governance? When concerned with our penal system, 1 Samuel 15:3 offers ruthless indiscriminate murder as punishment for wrongdoing; often seeing the sin of one man in a tribe as the sin of the entire tribe.

To read more of this essay, click here.

No Comments

We were delighted with the recent declaration of independence by the fledgling nation of Kosovo, and glad that the major European countries and the US lost little time in recognising it. The reactionary reaction from the Serbs was as predictable as it is contemptible (strange how all of a sudden Serbia is so interested in international law, isn’t it?), especially with recent announcements that display a certain childishness inappropriate to international discourse. The idea of a democratic pro-Western moderate Islamic European (says their declaration: “we believe our future lies with the European family”) country is a promising one to say the least.

One country, however, that has conspicuously failed to recognise Kosovo is another young state, whose declaration of independence was met with even worse threats and acts of violence: Israel. It is not hard to see why this might be from a political angle. Supporting Kosovo would alienate Russia, whom Israel has been trying to court as part of their bid to prevent Iran from becoming nuclear, though I personally don’t see that bearing fruit. Nor does it want to create a precedent whereby disputed peoples declare independence unilaterally, as the Palestinians have thought of doing in the past, while in the middle of peace negotiations - indeed, the comparison has been made.

This is the wrong attitude to take, for several reasons. For one thing, the above reasons are deeply flawed: Russia has never been a friend to Israel, and certainly isn’t on their side when it comes to Iran; and Abbas knows better than to declare independence not only when major powers will not recognise it, but when he has a willing partner in negotiations, which was not the case with Serbia. Rather, Israel should display camaraderie with its true friends, which includes Kosovo.

Hashim Thaçi, Kosovar prime minister, recently revealed the following to JTA: “I love Israel. What a great country. Kosovo is a friend of Israel. I met so many great leaders when I was there—Netanyahu, Sharon — I really admire them.” If nothing else, it seems exceedingly churlish and cynical for Israel to act in the way that it has.

But even from a political standpoint, a friendly Muslim state in SE Europe can hardly be a bad thing. Israel should not only be rushing to support such an effusive admirer, but should, along with Jews all over the world, be pouring investment into Kosovo to capitalise on this unique opportunity to improve Islamo-Jewish international relations. Kosovo has not forgotten Israel’s generosity, both in terms of aid and support during the crisis at the end of the last millennium, and nor should Jerusalem.

Israel would do well, as it approaches its 60th anniversary, to think back to the days of its own newly-declared independence. If Jews needed a Jewish state back then, how much more do they need a friendly Muslim one today?

3 Comments