Sticks and Stones

Some Palestinian “journalists” have responded to the recent murders in Jerusalem with something less than condemnation. One article in particular, by “Khalid Amayreh in Occupied East Jerusalem”, left me with a bitter taste in my mouth. The title, which fairly sums up the piece, reads “Soldiers (not innocent students) killed at settler center”.

It seems that the writer wishes to enter a discussion as to who is a civilian. According to his logic – that all Israeli citizens are legitimate targets due to compulsory military service – a citizen of any society that has conscription is a viable military target. Such as, say, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Sudan and Tunisia. We’ll bear that in mind next time we’re engaged in hostilities with those nations, Khalid.

But let us not forget that this yeshiva was (apparently) the headquarters of the Jewish settlement movement. Aha! They therefore deserved to die. That clears that one up. Except civilised people do not condone acts of violence – or, in this case, murder – in response to political beliefs. If we did then, presumably, retribution against the Palestinians who, in a 77% voter turnout, elected Hamas to 76 out of 132 parliamentary seats, would be equally justified. Or who were seen dancing in the streets, cheering and distributing bon-bons (yes, bon-bons), in celebration of cold-blooded murder.

Amaryeh, in the interests of journalism, moreover seems to deem it relevant that “Yitzhak Rabin’s killer, Yigal Amir, is reportedly to have studied at the Merkaz Ha’rav”. One wonders: is he sure he wants to go down that route? Unsurprisingly, he does not pursue this line of thought.

Of course, as was to be expected, the “Zionist-influenced or Zionist-controlled American media” did not stray from the official Zionist “propaganda”, shallowly portraying the innocent civilian victims as…well, as innocent civilians. But our mate Khalid knows better. They were, as “paramilitaries” (though not engaged in hostilities), anything but innocent. But, if that applies, then how much more was the assassination of Imad Mugniyah justified? And if we take this to its logical conclusion, then the attack, which was “probably to avenge [his] murder”, was in fact unjustified, as the original killing was justified. No?

Amaryeh also dismisses the claim that the IDF “doesn’t murder Palestinian civilians deliberately”, forgetting to note the fact that while the Israeli Army, in the interests of clarity, wears full military uniform when engaged in hostility (I hardly need mention that neither the victims of the shooting, nor the shooter himself, was wearing any such thing) – militants, if they are in an obliging mood, may deign to wear towels on their heads. But let us not forget that the murderer was a civilian himself until he decided to pick up a rifle and kill other civilians. This episode, if anything, perfectly demonstrates the dilemma facing Israel in terms of knowing who the enemy is.

After the horrific Baruch Goldstein massacre of almost exactly 14 years ago, Rabin described it as a “loathsome, criminal act of murder”, and the Israeli media unanimously condemned it in similar terms. Hamas have taken a slightly different approach, being so proud of the attack that they even claimed responsibility for it. In my view, that pretty much tells you all you need to know.

1 Comment

“Just as I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master. This is my idea of democracy.”

This idea expressed by Abraham Lincoln is a simple but fundamental one to the workings of a democracy. In order for it to function properly, it must include everyone capable of voting, and take them as equals.

So, do 16 and 17 year olds fall into this category? Do they deserve representation, and are they mature enough to use it responsibly?

Why should anyone have an interest in being represented? People should care because representation ensures your opinions are voiced on areas which affect you and that government listens. These are applicable to 16 year olds just as they are to 18 or 45 year olds. But what is more important, still, is that this demographic needs a voice on issues which are specific to them. The availability of youth facilities, the quality of schools, of children’s hospitals, policies towards combating youth crime and drug abuse: these are all aspects of society and politics on which many young people have a strong view, and a view which is relevant in informing policy. Few adults, it seems, can boast such an insight into these areas, and how best to solve them.

Representation is also desirable simply for the purpose of a more thorough democratic count. Since 16 year-olds do have to pay taxes, they are contributory members of society. Should they not have a say into how their money is spent, or how highly it is taxed in the future?

But we must strike a balance. It is clear that one should possess a certain level maturity before being allowed to vote. Have sixteen year-olds developed a sufficiently rational mind to be making such an integral decision?

Scientific research shows that, whilst there is evidence to suggest the development of the frontal lobes past sixteen, there is no discernible difference in the ability to weigh up different options and reach a reasoned judgement between sixteen and eighteen year-olds.

Young people do not go uneducated in political matters either. Many take Economics, Law, History or Politics at Advanced Level and it is compulsory to receive grounding in ‘Citizenship’ until the age of sixteen.

Yet the strongest argument, by far, for giving young people the vote is to look at what they can already do. I, at sixteen, am able to leave school, join the army, get married, have children, and, if that were not bad enough, hand over a good proportion of that directly to the Tax man. A discrepancy on this scale is simply unacceptable. Why is it that I am able to die for my country but have absolutely no means of influencing whether I go to war in the first place?

Admittedly, even if many sixteen and seventeen year-olds are politically astute and interested, perhaps far more are totally uninformed and irrational. Is it wise to extend suffrage to such a demographic? No less wise than to allow adults of all ages to vote despite the same level of knowledge and interest. As Winston Churchill said, “The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.” If this is true, it is sadly true for the entire electorate, and not merely pubescent teenagers.

Those who truly have no interest in deciding their future will more likely not bother to vote than vote irrationally. Thankfully, it seems too much bother for such people to register to vote and go to their local polling station. Those who are disenfranchised with their party are increasingly likely to not vote at all, out of protest, than they are to vote for a rival party.

This is a trend that needs reversing. In Hamburg, when this scheme was introduced, not only did 16-17 year-olds turn out in greater numbers than their 18-21 year-old counterparts, as they grew older they retained these good habits of voting, and turnout on the whole went up.

Young people need to learn how to be part of our democratic system whilst still young; whilst still enthused about issues which affect them. ‘Citizenship’ is only a ‘Mickey Mouse subject’ so long as it won’t affect you for another few years. But when it becomes important, now, young people start to sit up and listen. And this is what they need to do, if they have any desire in shaping the world in which they are to grow up.

No Comments

How often do we hear from know-nothing Christian pundits that the United States of America is founded on “Judaeo-Christian ethics” or “Christian morals”? In short, that the US is “a Christian country”? (I would supply a link, but I don’t really fancy trawling through Bill O’Reilly clips to come across one, thank you very much.)

Very well then. Let us explore some of the tenets of Christianity, as prescribed in that bible thingy they keep going on about, and see how familiar it is:

…that ye resist not evil… (Matthew 5:39)

The phrase “War on Terror” leaps immediately to mind. There are evil people in the world and, quite rightly, the United States has committed itself to doing everything within its power to combat them. What is more, under such a moral teaching the USA could do without a police force or even any justice system whatsoever.

…whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also (ibid.)

If the US followed this moral teaching, after 9/11 it would have invited al-Qaeda to take their pick of targets on the West Coast.

I was a stranger, and ye took me in (Matthew 25:35)

I was an immigrant, and I was deported.

What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder (Mark 10:9)

Seems a small point, but the freedom to divorce from a spouse is integral to the concept of personal freedom, and the secular USA rejects any notion of a “religious contract” that cannot be undone by us mere mortals.

sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor (Mark 10:21)

I’m no expert, but I’m fairly sure that the US infrastructure is based on a rather different economic model.

Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more (John 8:11)

This again, along with many other such verses, would leave many current judges without a means of income, and many chuckling criminals free on the streets.

At the name of Jesus every knee should bow (Phillipians 2:10)

One of a number of such exclusive verses, this has no resonance in the United States, where there is no coercion of religious belief, no religious test for public office, etc.

Feel free to add your own.

No Comments

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

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