Total Rage

at the latest news; at the stage when you can’t even bear to listen to a bulletin



Of course, it’s to do with Gaza and Hamas. But the fury is not caused by what some may assume – it’s fury at the wooden-headed West: at Bushie, Blair and Condi – these people at whose disposal is the best information, communications and presumably advice in history. Can these people never learn anything? Until their dying day (or last day in office) will it be the same broken phonograph record – “we don’t talk to terrorists, beacon of democracy, Iran’s nuclear threat, north Korea’s missile program, looking for moderate Arab states, pledge solidarity with Mahmood Abbas” etc. Mahmood we are coming to. What about the quest for ‘moderate’ Arab states? Maybe, first, the Arabs are looking for ‘moderate’ Western states to deal with. Ones that do not invade them, for instance..

The West wanted democracy in the Middle East. It didn’t work out too well in Iraq, so the next hope was Palestine. Elections were held there, but unfortunately the wrong party won – Hamas? What to do? Obviously, cut off all contact, dialogue and aid to the Palestinians and their authority. Because Hamas is a ‘terrorist’ organisation, and they don’t recognise Israel. Forgive me for getting confused, but I though there were a load of ‘respectable’ countries that don’t recognise Israel – Kuwait, Bahrain, Libya, Malaysia, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, but the US deals very amicably with all of these, especially if they have oil reserves. The other demand of Hamas is that they respect any previous agreement mid-east agreements. That’s rich – presumably Israel was and is exempt from any such obligation.

So we refuse any dealing, and Israel even withholds the Palestinians’ own money – shared customs dues for instances. What a brilliant formula for a stable and ‘moderate’ Palestine and what encouragement for the Western ideal of the opportunity to cast a vote for the government of your choice. The Israeli’s left Gaza, but only for the purpose of turning it into the world’s largest open air prison – their very own Warsaw ghetto; an ominous comparison with Israel’s intent to obliterate with ‘Hamasstan’ on their doorstep.

So the Palestinian’s attempted to compromise, after the first outbursts of frustrated violence, to form a ‘unity’ government. Although Hamas had won the elections, they agreed to share power with their defeated rivals Fatah and old Abby was back at the centre of things again. Better? No chance. Israel and its American satellite will refuse any dealings with the unity government, because it still contains some Hamas. But they still ‘pledge support’ to Mahmood Abbas, the Palestinian president. What does one discuss with a (largely figurehead) president if we don’t deal with anyone in his government? Ask him for tea and discuss the weather? I don’t know – ask Dubya or Condi.

So, of course, frustrations boil over, Hamas are fed up of beings the mugs, no salaries are being paid and the people are basically starving, so of course Hamas seize their chance in Gaza where they are strongest and topple who they see as Western stooges – with or without Iranian help, who cares. Abby back in the West bank dismisses the government and its Hamas prime minister (it is not at all clear that he is empowered to do this) and declares a West Bank purely composed of his Fatah cronies. The West of course (and Arab states) pledge solidarity with Mahmood Abbas. He is a lame duck but who cares.

Suddenly it struck me that this is code for washing your hands of the problem. If you haven’t a clue what to do, you 'pledge your support for Mahmood Abbas’. He must be the most pledged politician in history. Everyone loves him. Why – because he will cause no problems, because he won’t and can’t do anything. Some American Indian tribes, I think, used to hold a pow-wow with a carved totem pole. They expressed their opinions and intentions to the pole, and if it did not answer, they assumed there was no counter to their arguments and they were free and justified to act as they desired. Mr Abbas is they a rather chubby totem pole, a placebo for the conflict. Is it any wonder that he is seen, not just by radical Arabs, a pure stooge and puppet of the West?

A final word on ‘terrorism’. There is a fact, not of course understood by the broken phonograph players, that there are two sorts of terrorist. One is the insane sort, typified by al Qaeda, which is impossible to deal with not only because it is fanatical, but also because it objectives are unattainable or even incomprehensible. The other sort of terrorist, usually nationalistically based, does have a political agenda, which can in principle be talked about. For instance, the IRA wanted British ruled Northern Ireland to be incorporated into the mainly Catholic Republic. That was a no-go. But what was the root problem? Discrimination against northern Catholics? Would the IRA settle for guaranteed equality and fair treatment for the Catholic community, and the reining in of the more extreme Protestant militias and assorted lunatics? Eventually, they did. And ETA – a bloody group, but with an agenda – independence of the Basque regions from Spain. They do not want actually to exterminate every Spaniard. Spain would not allow independence. But how about 75% autonomy, or call it what you will? A deal is surely possible.

Hamas I am sure are in the second group. They have a negotiable agenda, even if unpalatable. But unpalatable does not mean impossible. Sure, their young hotheads fire rather ineffective rockets into Israel. But even if they didn’t, Israel will find some other excuse not to talk to them. Just as the British refused to talk to IRA for a wasted bloody quarter-century. Eventually, a deal will be done. People cannot go on fighting forever. But don’t expect anything soon: not while the leadership of the Free World is a broken phonograph.

25 years

since the Flaklands war

I remember it well, and the above is the iconic photograph of the conflict - like the collapsed statue of Saddam in the present stupid war. What a ridiculous conflict! On one side, the music-hall (but deadly) Argentinian duo, General Valdieri and Admiral Lami Doso, famously picked up by one British paper as the reverse of "O sod em all". On the other, Mrs. Thatcher, whose corpse was propped up today to proclaim it as a great victory. Obviously, the unctuous Mr. Blair was at hand at Westminster Abbey to pay tribute to the 255 British dead of the war. He should be spending some time in the future, paying tribute to more British dead, as well; those of his making.

What of the Falkland Islands? Apart from having the most distinctive shape on the map of any territory in the world (they remind me of two copulating shrimps), they are in fact the last vestige of the little remembered British empire in South America - British missionaries and sheep farmers in the 19th century effectively controlled huge stretches of Pategonia and the Argentinian pampas. They were gradually pushed off the mainland and the Falklands are their final toehold. A bit like the Channel islands then - an empire of residuals.

The Argentinian strategy, like that of all military dictatorships, was totally dumb. Had they just waited it out, Britain, who were desperately looking around to cut costs and dump the unproductive colony, would have basically given it them. But no, the generals decided they needed an issue to whip up the masses and invaded. After hundreds of lives, they were pushed out again, Britain getting a little help from its ally, the even less savoury dictatorship of Chile.

There was a positive outcome; but on the Argeninian side. The military fell, and democracy returned to this civilised and cultivated nation. Now, after some celebrated economic hiccups, they have a huge tourist industry and are laughing all the way to the bank. But even in a democracy, the sting of defeat remains.

The Falklands, inevitably, remain a backwater, with a British population whose political views are somewhat to the right of the white Smith regime in Rhodesia. Nice scenery, but not a great attraction for visitors.

Relations between the islands and the mainland after enjoying a temporary thaw, have returned to deep freeze; but now, instead of imperialism, the issues are the modern practical ones of oil exploration, air links and fishing rights.

Would that Britain had stood up for the democratic rights of the people of Hong Kong, against the Chinese take-over a couple of years later. But of course the Chinese are big, and could not be bullied.

The IOC is visiting London today

for a progress check-up on 2012. I’m sure that the amount of money spent will not be a problem, if that is what the IOC is looking for.

The Olympic logo, unveiled a few days ago, is a perfect microcosm of the London Olympics itself: of how prices of any undertaking balloon unbelievably when someone else’s money is paying for it, and how ‘national’ projects provide the grimmest examples. Like the National Stadium at Wembley, which has ended up costing £ 800 million of semi-public money, in contrast with the beautiful (and £40 million) Stadium of Light at Sunderland. OK, twice the capacity, at 20 times the price.

The PR-spin government which the UK has been inflicted with these many years, are the ultimate enthusiasts for throwing uncounted billions of (other people’s) money at the Olympic project. Then tens of millions are spent on ‘consultants’ to advise on how to minimise further cost overruns! The London Olympic will feature in future project management textbooks as one of the worst budgeted and cost-managed project of all time. Like Eurotunnel, but at least you can travel through a tunnel.

For now, back to the logo. It debuted with a video, hastily withdrawn since it reputedly caused epileptic seizures; and evidently devised by hairy videographic-survivors of the 70’s when flashing darting coloured lines and streaks were cool. (I used to program similar things on my first graphics-capable PC). The logo reminded some of ‘two rhomboids bonking’ and drew objections from Jewish groups because its angularity was slightly but disturbingly reminiscent of a swastika. See for instance

It was ages before I even twigged that it was an arty rendition of the digits 2-0-1-2. Mr. Blair, needless to say, thinks it’s fantastic. And the cost – wait for it - £400 000 or nearly 6 million Rand/N$ - a logo ? [Query: if the Olympic logo costs half a million pounds, what will the built from scratch Olympic Stadium cost? No, of course we can’t use Wembley]. Commentators in the ad industry said that young designers could have done the same job for £ 10 000. What a snip! Depends on the customer again. If a disadvantaged young people’s sports club wanted a new logo, paying for out of their own money, they probably could get one done for £ 100. But a National project, where national Prestige is at stake (and National funds are available)? Ah then, add a factor of 400 thousand percent!

What a brilliant

in swinger

(or curve ball to our American friends, since presumably neither Pres. Bush nor Pres. Putin understand cricket) -

Putin bowled to Bush at the G8. The radar shields/missile bases or whatever they are, to be based in Poland and the Czech republic - directed against Russia? Perish the thought. All to to with those nasty guys in Iran and North Korea, who may be minded to lob things at the US. (Question: my school geography is a bit rusty, but does the quickest path from North Korea to the US go anywhere near Poland?)

Anyway, if this were the correct reason, Putin has a brilliant and helpful suggestion. Why doesn't the US 'borrow' the Soviet-era missile tracking base in Azerbaijan - much closer and more relevant to Iran anyway? Why, Russian and the US could collaborate and share technology in combating skuds from rogue states.

"Interesting" says President Bush, while the spin doctors scramble for a face-saving response. Very interesting.

40 years


since the 6 day war


I always remember the joke of my science teacher : "why did the Israelis fight a six day war ?"
Answer, of course, is that they had only hired the uniforms for a week.

Rarely if ever, could there ever have been a conflict between two sides, let alone multiple sides, all of whom supposed to be professional and well-armed fighting forces, where the result was so massively and abruptly one-sided.

People throughout the world, whether they were Israeli supporters or not, were stunned and thrilled by the outcome. Total victory is highly intoxicating. And in those dim, far off days, it did seem that Israel was in the right: its leaders and policies were moderate, and it really was threatened with extinction by all its neighbours, in a territory ridiculously vulnerable - only 12 km wide at its central point.

From the outcome of the war, Arabs have never lost the reputation of big-mouths, long on violent and vituperative rhetoric, short on ideas, capability or delivery, whether military or political. They and the Palestinians have never been taken seriously to this day.

The legacy of the war has been the assumption of total Israeli supremacy, never dented until the Lebanese debacle last year, and the image of the Arabs as blustering cowards. The casualty has been the Palestinians, and their legitimate cause and grievances.