Exchange with “Student Rights”

Dear Student Rights,
 
I was just googling away and happened across this “open letter” penned by a chap called Raheem Kassam.  The letter berates world renowned scientist Stephen Hawking for his public endorsement of the “boycott Israel” campagin.  As your esteemed organisation will be aware, however, Israel is an egregious violator of international law, whose crimes are directly facilitated by the British government (through its supply of arms and political/diplomatic cover).  Thus, contrary to the claims made in the letter, Israel is an entirely legitimate target for boycott by British nationals of conscience… many of whom see blindingly obvious parallels between the way Israel treats Palestinians and the way apartheid-era South Africa treated blacks.  This in mind, it seems to me that Kassam’s “open letter” could quite reasonably be viewed as a subtle form of… shhh, whisper it quietly… extremism? 
 
I look forward to hearing from you.
 
Best wishes,
 
Joe Sucksmith

————-

Joe,
Your flattering email comes directly to me, just FYI, as the director of Student Rights
And while I’m sure we can disagree on nuances, because clearly you believe the most free and democratic state in the Middle East (have you visited with a name like Raheem Kassam?) is a pariah, I hope you’re not naive enough to believe that boycotts are an effective road towards peace. I assume your aspiration is peace of course, as mine is, in which case the question returns to you: How exactly does seeking to demonise an entire population bring about peace?
I look forward to your deepest thoughts on the matter.
Kind regards,

Raheem

————–

Not quite, Raheem.  Your “aspiration” is for peace defined on the terms of the oppressor.  My “aspiration” is for peace defined on the terms of the oppressed.
Put another way, my “aspiration” is for a just peace; specifically, a peace which involves Israel’s genuine compliance with UN resolutions 194 and 242.  Boycott is a non-violent means of assisting the Palestinians’ struggle to this end.
Btw, a cursory search of your “Student Rights” site reveals it to be a comically crude front for two mutually reinforcing agendas: the demonization of Islam and the defence of zionism.  Small wonder that you’re welcomed with open arms by the Israelis…
Toodle-pip!

—————
Keep on with your armchair activism Joe. You’re changing the world, don’t you know?

Sent from my iPhone

—————

Thanks, Raheem, that means a lot to me.  Just out of interest: who are your major donors, and have you, at any time, accepted monies from the government’s Prevent pot?  I ask because, like you, I’m interested in exposing the funding streams of extremist organisations, and especially keen to establish whether any such organisations have received “public money”…

—————
No we’ve never taken any money from any government. We have no “major” Donors to the point where I don’t even take a salary for my work. Our donors are all private, philanthropic individuals and current and recent students who believe that extremism on campus is a problem. We have no authority to disclose the names and information of individuals but I can assure you, as far as you believe me, that they are thoroughly ethical sources of funding with absolutely no cause for concern from the staunchest perspectives. My colleague, Rupert, is very left wing and as many people know my politics are of the right. Therefore to find donors that suit both perspectives is hard, but possible, and we don’t intend to breach their privacy.
Raheem

Sent from my iPhone

—————-
Thanks, but I get it now.  Student Rights is a front for the far right Henry Jackson Society, of which both you and Sutton are members.  I see you’re listed in the ranks of “professional staff” on the HJS website  – this means you’re paid by HJS, right?  Your “very left wing” (LOL) colleague Sutton as well, given he shuttles between Student Rights and Strategic Analysis (an HJS arm)?
 
—————-
The “far right” HJS which is named after a progressive senator, has many Labour signatories and more lefties working there than righties? Yeah good one mate. And no, I left HJS full time in march. I’m now an associate fellow. Unpaid.
Are you really this naive or simply brainwashed? Get a clue. And stop emailing me.

Sent from my iPhone

Israeli war crimes – all so “intriguing” to the BBC…

A brief exchange with the BBC’s Jonathan Marcus…

——–

Hi Jonathan,

In this article you describe Israel’s bombing of Damascus as “intriguing”.

Had Syria just bombed Tel Aviv, do you think you would have been similarly “intrigued”?

Can you explain the sense in which “intrigue” is applicable to prima facie violations of international law that maim and kill human beings?

Look forward to hearing from you.

Best wishes,

Joe Sucksmith

——–

Thank you for writing but it seems to me if there are a number of potential targets That might have been hit – including potentially some closely associated with the Syrian regime’s command and control – then it is indeed intriguing.
What’s your problem here ? Take that as a rhetorical question.
Many thanks again
JM

Sent from my iPhone

——–

But is it really “intriguing” or just plain “criminal”? Which adjective do you think the victims would use? Does your article genuinely inform the reader or merely distract from what appears to be a flagrant act of Israeli aggression?

These are not rhetorical questions.

——–

I cannot see what you are complaining about in the piece. I suggest that if you do not like Israel’s actions you write to their Embassy and complain.
I don’t think we are going to make any headway here so let’s call it a day.
JM

Sent from my iPhone

Poll Results

Results are in!  I’ve opted for a tabular summary, as it’s easier than a graph – sorry.  Many thanks to all those who responded…

	Agree	Disagree	Not sure
Even before the banking crisis hit in 2008, the UK was borrowing too much money to pay for public services that, in the long term, we could not afford.	63%	12%	25%
Dealing with Britain’s deficit and debt is the only way to get back to a strong economy.	50%	25%	25%
What has happened in Greece could just as easily have happened here.	12%	88%
If the government manages to clear the deficit by the end of 2017, it will be a significant achievement which benefits our entire economy.	44%	28%	28%
OVERALL:	42%	39%	19%

The most immediately noteworthy element, I feel, is that, while an overwhelming number of people disagreed that what has happened in Greece could just as easily happen in the UK, a majority nonetheless agreed that the UK has overspent on public services and now needs to clear its debts!

Some food for thought (I hope!)…

Why did Greece implode?

Greece and other Euro states have ceded currency sovereignty (= ability to create central bank reserves from thin air) to the European Central Bank, which does not have a mandate to create reserves in the interests of any particular member state.  This means there is a genuine need for member states to sell bonds at market rates to fund their deficits, leading to potential funding crises in the event of a recession.  The UK, by contrast, issues its own currency, and thus cannot ever go bankrupt.  Markets know this, as reflected in the low rates for UK bonds.

How is this relevant to the UK’s deficit?

As sovereign issuer of its own currency the UK possesses an infinite ability both to run deficits and pay down debt – how could it be otherwise for a state that issues its own currency??  Furthermore, in the midst of a global downturn affecting all major economies and trading partners, there is only one feasible way of reviving the private sector, and that’s by running a large government deficit.  As the three people who read my previous post on the sectoral balances will recall, a government  deficit, by definition, equals a private sector surplus – the larger this surplus, the greater the ability of the private sector to pay down its debt – simples!

Please take this short poll…

Ok, so earlier today my parents handed me a mailing they’d received from one David Cameron.  Now, while it’s jolly nice of “Dave” to write and all that, my regular readers (who, according to WordPress stats,  number approximately 3) won’t be surprised to learn that the contents of the mailing, in particular the economics section of the questionnaire, did rile me a little.

Before commenting  any further, however, I thought it might be interesting to conduct my own little poll, using Dave’s questions (as word for word as polldaddy will allow), just to get a snapshot of where the public are at on these issues.   Please note:  answers are completely anonymous and once results are in, I’ll conduct a thorough statistical analysis and feed back to readers through the medium of dance…  sorry, I mean graphs.

Here’s the poll – knock yourselves out, people!

Economic suicide?

Every now again, you happen across some truly mesmeric graphs.   Here they are, courtesy of the always insightful Neil Wilson over at 3spoken:

Are you mesmerised?  If not, you certainly should be.  Here’s why…

Graph 1 illustrates that the UK, like most neoliberal economies, is presently suffering from a PRIVATE debt crisis.  That’s private debt, not public debt.  Indeed, public debt has remained fairly constant – yes, it’s trickled upward in recent years, but it’s certainly nothing to write home about in macroeconomic terms, and way lower than the historic high of 250% that prevailed at the end of WW2 (at which point the government of the day made the entirely correct decision to SPEND in order to get the economy moving).  So, why the hysteria about our public finances?  Why the shrieks of terror that our deficit (the dreaded fucking deficit!) is about to plunge us into the economic abyss?  Which brings me to Graph 2…

Graph 2 is pictorial confirmation of the important macroeconomic accounting identity long pointed out by Modern Money theorists, namely that the public sector deficit = the private sector surplus, and vice-versa.  Hence, the mirror image.  Put another way, this means that the government, by running a deficit, is supplying the net assets required by the private sector to spend, save, and pay down the record debt depicted in Graph 1.  By contrast, official mainstream policy apparently aims to cut the deficit, which, by corollary,  must reduce the private sector’s ability to pay down its debt.  In other words, the graph confirms that official UK government policy is to commit economic suicide.

Trebles all round, everyone?

Martin Horwood on Israel/Palestine: a case of sidestep-o-rama

How terribly naive of me to expect straight answers from my MP!    Exchange reads bottom up…

 

Hi Martin,

Many thanks.  For info, I’ve posted your response at This is Glos and Media Lens, and will shortly post it at my blog.

I’m sorry you feel aggrieved at the term “slippery”, which was used first by another contributor at Media Lens.  If, however, you cast an honest eye over our exchange, you’ll see that you didn’t give straight answers until your closing email; thus “slippery” seems perfectly reasonable, in my view.

By way of closing, I’ll leave you with an excerpt from an open letter published back in 2008/9, that could just as easily have been published in November 2012, and that demonstrates where an increasing number of people are on this issue… ahead of the politicians, as ever! 

“The massacres in Gaza are the latest phase of a war that Israel has been waging against the people of Palestine for more than 60 years. The goal of this war has never changed: to use overwhelming military power to eradicate the Palestinians as a political force, one capable of resisting Israel’s ongoing appropriation of their land and resources. Israel’s war against the Palestinians has turned Gaza and the West Bank into a pair of gigantic political prisons. There is nothing symmetrical about this war in terms of principles, tactics or consequences. Israel is responsible for launching and intensifying it, and for ending the most recent lull in hostilities.  Israel must lose. It is not enough to call for another ceasefire, or more humanitarian assistance. It is not enough to urge the renewal of dialogue and to acknowledge the concerns and suffering of both sides. If we believe in the principle of democratic self-determination, if we affirm the right to resist military aggression and colonial occupation, then we are obliged to take sides… against Israel, and with the people of Gaza and the West Bank.”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/16/gaza-israel-petitions

Happy Christmas.

Joe

———

Dear Joe

I have a feeling I’m being foolish in keeping on trying to answer your questions since you seem determined to put the worst possible interpretation on all my replies and you’ve now accused me of being ‘slippery’ on the Media Lens website when I’ve actually tried – at length – to answer all your questions honestly and fairly. Anyway, here goes – one last time:

1.      Yes, Israel is still legally the occupying power even though they withdrew from active occupation of Gaza in 2005.  How much clearer can I be?

2.      No, it depends on the crime.  Intentionally or recklessly killing civilians is morally wrong whoever does it and whatever their legal status.

3.      No-one has asked me to sign EDM 788 before, as far as I know.  I’m happy to sign it.

You seem to think that I am somehow trying to conceal a partisan position in favour of Israel.  This despite the fact that I have only recently called for the recognition of Palestinian statehood, actively lobbied ministers for a British ‘yes’ vote at the UN, condemned Israel’s over-reaction to that vote as well as their illegal settlement-building generally and called for a re-examination of the economic relationship between Israel and the European Union.  I support a free, independent and democratic state of Palestine alongside Israel with borders based on the 1967 lines (with mutually agreed land swaps) and with East Jerusalem as its capital, and with a fair settlement for Palestinian refugees.  But, no, I am not prepared to ascribe all the blame in this conflict to one side or to provide any kind of moral excuse whatsoever for the deliberate attempted and actual murder of Israeli civilians.

I think we have examined and re-examined every aspect of this debate several times now so I hope you don’t mind if I draw it to a close.  I think you should by now be pretty clear what my position is and, although I have my doubts that you will give me any credit at all for this, I hope you will recognise that I am trying to work for a solution that is both just and peaceful for all concerned.

Happy Christmas

Martin

———

Hi Martin,

Many thanks for the prompt response.

Some brief rejoinders that, as usual, will be made available to others via Facebook and This is Glos.

“Yes, Israel is legally the occupying power, has actively occupied in Gaza and still is actively occupying large parts of the West Bank.  I tend not to use the phrase ‘occupied Palestinian territories’ in debates and elsewhere precisely because I think the simpler term ‘Palestine’ recognises more straightforwardly what should be that country’s equivalent status to ‘Israel’ and is in line with international agencies’ judgement that the Palestinian Authority has now achieved a great deal of the international benchmarks for statehood.  In the specific case of Gaza, Israel is not in active occupation at the moment having passed on administrative authority in 1994 in line with the Oslo Accords and withdrawn altogether in 2005, albeit within all the economic and military constraints that we both know all too well.  Gaza and Palestine will not of course gain true independence until there is a peace settlement.” (Martin Horwood)

This paragraph would seem to be an answer, of sorts, to questions (1) and (2).  However, from your use of “active occupation” to differentiate between Gaza and the West Bank, it is unclear as to whether or not you actually concur with the British Government (and the United Nations) that Israel remains an “occupying power” in respect of Gaza.  Could you confirm, please?  A simple yes or no will suffice.

Regards your use of “Palestine” rather than “occupied Palestinian territories”, the problem with this is that it potentially obscures the historical reality, namely that Palestine is NOT equivalent to Israel; that Israel occupies Palestine, and – incredibly – has done so since 1967.  This context is crucial both to understanding the dynamics of events in the region AND to securing a just “peace settlement” (as opposed to merely a “peace settlement”).

“But just to be absolutely clear in answer to your crucial third question, I don’t think that attempting to deliberately murder Israeli civilians are morally justified in any way.  Such attacks are also profoundly undermining of any attempt at a peace process and of the Abbas government’s attempts to pursue a peaceful diplomatic approach.” (Martin Horwood)

This is an obvious strawman.   The “crucial third question” neither states nor implies that firing rockets at civilians is “morally justified”.   Rather, it seeks acknowledgement of something that ought to be uncontroversial:  that the crimes of the occupier warrant greater attention than the crimes of the occupied.  Do you agree with this?

“As far as I know we don’t sell weapons to Israel although the policy is to consider each export licence on its individual merits and I have to say I would be happier with a clearer policy that ruled out components that could be used in disproportionate Israeli military responses of the kind we have seen in Gaza recently.  Some UK export licences have been granted for potentially defence-related items such as aeronautics software and imaging cameras but a licence for combat aircraft components to be exported to Israel was refused only this summer.” (Martin Horwood)

Well, my question wasn’t really specific to the UK (the US, our “special relation”, is of course the principal culprit), but of course, it is nonsense to suggest that the UK doesn’t sell weapons to Israel.  Sure, some export licences have been refused in recent years, but weapons and, more relevantly, components for use in military equipment (e.g. Head-up displays in attack aircraft) have consistently been sold to Israel since the Oslo Accords.  Thus, the issue isn’t so much that the UK government is giving insufficient support to those resisting occupation, but rather that the UK government (of which you are part!) is ACTIVELY FACILITATING the crimes of the occupier. Early Day Motion 788 seems highly relevant at this juncture – is there any reason you haven’t signed?

Best,

Joe 

———

Yes, Israel is legally the occupying power, has actively occupied in Gaza and still is actively occupying large parts of the West Bank.  I tend not to use the phrase ‘occupied Palestinian territories’ in debates and elsewhere precisely because I think the simpler term ‘Palestine’ recognises more straightforwardly what should be that country’s equivalent status to ‘Israel’ and is in line with international agencies’ judgement that the Palestinian Authority has now achieved a great deal of the international benchmarks for statehood.  In the specific case of Gaza, Israel is not in active occupation at the moment having passed on administrative authority in 1994 in line with the Oslo Accords and withdrawn altogether in 2005, albeit within all the economic and military constraints that we both know all too well.  Gaza and Palestine will not of course gain true independence until there is a peace settlement.

But just to be absolutely clear in answer to your crucial third question, I don’t think that attempting to deliberately murder Israeli civilians are morally justified in any way.  Such attacks are also profoundly undermining of any attempt at a peace process and of the Abbas government’s attempts to pursue a peaceful diplomatic approach.

As far as I know we don’t sell weapons to Israel although the policy is to consider each export licence on its individual merits and I have to say I would be happier with a clearer policy that ruled out components that could be used in disproportionate Israeli military responses of the kind we have seen in Gaza recently.  Some UK export licences have been granted for potentially defence-related items such as aeronautics software and imaging cameras but a licence for combat aircraft components to be exported to Israel was refused only this summer.

Best regards

Martin Horwood MP

———

Dear Martin,

Many thanks for your email.

You say:

“Are the root causes Israel’s continuing failure to halt illegal settlements, their blockade of Gaza or their failure to reward those Palestinians attempting to pursue diplomacy not violence? None of these are helping so possibly the answer is yes…”

Which sounds reasonable… but, again, isn’t quite what I asked, is it?  This sentence, in the context of your other published responses on this matter (I’ve just conducted a brief google search!), seems to indicate a reluctance on your part to characterise the situation in Gaza (and indeed the West Bank) as one of “occupation”.

This in mind, I’d like to request answers to a few simple questions please (yes/no answers will suffice):

(1)  Do you agree with your own government’s assessment that “although there is no permanent physical Israeli presence in Gaza, given the significant control that Israel has over Gaza’s borders, airspace and territorial waters, the UK judges that Israel retains obligations under the fourth Geneva Convention as an occupying power“?

(2)  Assuming you have answered “yes” to (1), do you agree that application of a framework in which Israel is the “occupying power” and the West Bank and Gaza are “occupied Palestinian territories” is in accord with the generally accepted facts of the matter?

(3)  Assuming you have answered “yes” to (2), do you agree that, morally speaking, the manner in which the ”occupied” resist occupation is secondary to the “occupying power’s” obligation to end its occupation?

(4) Do you agree that selling weapons to the “occupying power” directly facilitates its military activities against those it occupies, and is thus completely at odds with (3)?
I do hope you’ll  respond to these questions, which shouldn’t take more than a few moments.

Please note that, as previously, I’ll be posting our continuing exchange at This is Gloucestershire, on Facebook, and also at my blog.

Best wishes.

———

Dear Joe,

I do understand what you are saying but the immediate cause of this specific conflict is undoubtedly the rockets fired from Gaza at Israeli civilians.  Are the root causes Israel’s continuing failure to halt illegal settlements, their blockade of Gaza or their failure to reward those Palestinians attempting to pursue diplomacy not violence?  None of these are helping so possibly the answer is yes – but I don’t think any of these things justify firing rockets at civilians, any more than I think firing rockets at civilians justifies a disproportionately violent response from Israel which has cost many more Palestinian lives.  Seeking to definitively ascribe blame to one side or the other is a hopeless game.  The key thing it seems to me is to encourage those on both sides who are pursuing the path of diplomacy and negotiation, for instance with a UK government ‘yes’ vote to Palestinian recognition in the UN General Assembly if we can persuade the government to cast it this week.

Best regards

Martin Horwood MP

———

Dear Martin,

Your press release does not answer the question.  To re-phrase:

Do you accept that the root cause of the recent violence is not rockets fired from Gaza, but rather Israel’s continuing occupation of Palestinian territory (to include the illegal siege of Gaza)?

Please note I will be posting our continuing exchange at This is Gloucestershire, and also on Facebook.

Many thanks,

Joe

———

I will be meeting with FCO officials and if possible ministers this week in relation to the situation in Gaza.  It is critical that we urge Hamas to cease rocket attacks on Israeli civilians but also that Israel pulls back from escalating the situation in a way that will doubtless cause more civilian casualties amongst the population in Gaza, further inflame opinion in other middle eastern countries and across the world and further damage any prospect of the peace process resuming.  The Fatah administration in the West Bank and moderates within Israeli civil and political society need to be encouraged in their efforts to find diplomatic and political paths out of this tragic situation.

———

Dear Martin,

The state of Israel continues to justify its military action against Gaza on grounds of “self defence”. Ipso facto, since Gaza remains OCCUPIED under international law (an interpretation shared by the British government), it is proclaiming the right of an occupier to crush the resistance of the occupied.  Applied universally, this leads to conclusions any reasonable observer would reject (think Iraq’s occupation of Kuwait or Nazi Germany’s occupation of, say, France, and so on).  How then to explain why this “right” is accepted by so many (including, it would seem, William Hague) in the case of Israel?

I would be grateful if you could post your views at This is Gloucestershire, where they will be available to all.

Best wishes,

Joe

Occupation – the unspeakable context

In lieu of a further response to my email (which, going on past experience, is unlikely to arrive swiftly, if at all), some brief thoughts on Martin Horwood’s initial reply, which read:

“I will be meeting with FCO officials and if possible ministers this week in relation to the situation in Gaza.  It is critical that we urge Hamas to cease rocket attacks on Israeli civilians but also that Israel pulls back from escalating the situation in a way that will doubtless cause more civilian casualties amongst the population in Gaza, further inflame opinion in other middle eastern countries and across the world and further damage any prospect of the peace process resuming.  The Fatah administration in the West Bank and moderates within Israeli civil and political society need to be encouraged in their efforts to find diplomatic and political paths out of this tragic situation.”

There are a number of things to note:

1.  This is a press release, not an answer to a constituent’s email.

2.  It is clear from the phraseology that, in Martin’s mind, this “tragic situation” began with rocket attacks from Gaza, which – inevitably – need to “cease” if Israeli “escalation” is to be prevented.  In addition, note the phrase “will doubtless cause more civilian casualties”, which of course assumes Israeli casualties logically preceded Palestinian casualties.  In fact, as a little research makes clear, this chronology is not in accord with the available evidence, which suggests that, as standard,  it was Israel that shattered the truce, not Hamas.

3.  Calls for Fatah to chart a path out of this “tragic situation” demonstrate a shocking naivety regards the political trajectory in Palestine.  Hamas was democratically elected, against a backdrop of Fatah corruption and collaboration with Israel.

4.  This is not a “tragic situation”, devoid of agency and context.  It is an occupier (Israel) smashing the occupied (Gaza), against a backdrop of systematic ethnic cleansing dating back to the 1940s.  An occupying power does not have the “right to defend itself” against those it occupies.  Rather, it has a RESPONSIBILITY to end its occupation, in accord with international legal norms.  This is the seemingly unspeakable context of Israel’s murderous assault on the people of Gaza; context that the mainstream media systematically denies its viewers, preferring in its place a spurious narrative of equivalence, of “tit for tat”, of “intractable conflict”, that of course plays straight into the hands of the occupier.