Bethlehem blues

Aside from hopes of yuletide snow and Wii computer games - climate change and looming recession, notwithstanding - Christmas, for many western kids, is still somewhat synonymous with the Little Town of Bethlehem.

Well, it was for me. And, even as I grew older and shed those infant - and most of my religious - illusions, that charming little association held. Perhaps it was the pleasing memory of getting a part in the Nativity play at primary school - alright, so I was 'just' a shepherd, but carried the role, I thought, with a certain 'pastoral presence' - yes, another happy childhood - or, maybe still, adult -illusion.

How odd, this Christmas, to reflect on my recent visit to the Little Town, and for the now predominant association to be the monstrous Apartheid Wall surrounding it. Not Manger Square. Not even the intimate Church of the Nativity, with its special symbolism. Just that faceless expanse of concrete inhumanity. How the Israeli Occupation deprives us even of our childish reverie.

Indeed, most of my mental images of Bethlehem are now of jarring, oppressive things: the queues of humiliated Palestinians lined-up beneath the towering wall waiting to be processed; the brutal checkpoint installation with its panopticon surveillance; the anonymous poverty just a few minutes walk from Manger Square; the sight of a nearby Israeli settlement, all affluent, coy and self-contained while the besieged Palestinains struggle to maintain essential services.

Palestinian existence. A people walled-in, their history and landmarks stolen. A topography of hidden, shameful purges and cultural vandalism which, as Ilan Pappe reminds us, extends across this Zionist-cleansed land:

"All over Israel many new settlements and national parks have become part of the country's collective memory without any reference to the Palestinian villages that once stood there, even where there are vestiges, such as an isolated house or a mosque, which visibly attest to the fact that people used to live there as recently as 1948." (1)

And shamefully hidden, too, by Zionist historiography, the crushing truth of how that erasure of people and their ordinary, simple lives came about.

Pappe describes in vivid and forensic detail how Ben-Gurion's Consultancy - the inner cabal of Zionist elites - met, planned and approved their own version of a final solution for the mass removal and murder of the Palestinian population. With the British Mandate coming to a close, Hagana, Irgun and Stern Gang forces had already used multiple "retaliatory" pretexts for extinguishing Palestinian villages. And from the infamous Long Seminar (31 January 1948) came Ben-Gurion's "green light" and execution of a policy intended to "cause optimal damage and kill as many villagers as possible." (2).

Under Plan Dalet, villages like Deir Yassin witnessed the ruthless reality of the Consultancy's ethnic cleansing policy, as recounted here by Fahim Zaydan, a twelve year old Palestinian at the time, who saw his entire family murdered before his eyes:

"They took us out one after the other, shot an old man and when one of his daughters cried, she was shot too. Then they called my brother Muhammad, and shot him in front of us, and when my mother yelled, bending over him - carrying my little sister Hudra in her hands, still breastfeeding her - they shot her too." (3)

The pain of such experiences are written on every Palestinian face. And that daily pain goes on. In the ritual humiliation of the West Bank people. In the wicked Israeli and international starvation of Gaza, a siege the 'civilized' European Union has wilfully served to enforce while knowing all-too-well the extent of Israel's own terrorist agenda and extra-judicial murder of Palestinians.

Exiled Palestinians, the world over, are also marked by the ongoing catastrophe. At our Palestinian support stall, some ethnic Palestinians, their families now many-generational parts of the mass exclusion, cannot even bear to look at the piles of photos we keep of the West Bank. One fine man, whose family fled in '48, recently stood reflecting with us, his quiet, dignified eyes filling-up as we talked of our own time in the refugee camps, of the routine dehumanisation and how he and his family remain lost among that discarded diaspora.

Up the street, amid the festive shoppers, a Salvation Army band played Oh Little Town of Bethlehem. And it occurred to me that no amount of Western refuge, new-land 'belonging' or consumer 'well-being' can compensate for the loss of one's home and right of return to that homeland. And I understood how only the exiled can understand the psychology and pain of exile.

And, again, those lingering thoughts and images of Bethlehem. Of oppressive security towers and trapped people. Little Town. Enclosed and humbled. Dusty, sad streets. Ragged kids kicking around, their tiny frames and paltry lives dwarfed by the wall.

Yet, something else. Something very particular and much more redeeming, a somehow defining association of resistance and hope: the wonderful spirit and generosity of those people we met and spent our time with in the town's Azeh and Aida Refugee Camps. Of all those smiling children. Of all those parents struggling, quietly, valiantly, to raise and protect them. Of our resilient friends running the little projects helping to keep their hopes alive. And of a kind man and his family who took us into his and other homes in one of the camps, to witness and share, in happy empathy, a little part of their lives.

To them and all our other Palestinian friends this Eid-ul-Adha and Christmas, my own humblest expressions of thanks and love.

John

1. Ilan Pappe, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine (Oneworld: 2006), p 89.

2. Ibid, p 64.

3. Ibid, p 90.

Courting defiance: defending Aamer Anwar

Glasgow Sheriff Court (an apparent exchange)

Sheriff: Have you anything to say before sentencing?
Accused: As sure as God's my judge, your honour, I'm not guilty.
Sheriff: He's not, I am, you are, six months.

An amusing line, if I recall, from the fine film on Jimmy Boyle, A Sense of Freedom, no doubt typical of the many theatrical exchanges that have graced Scotland's courtrooms. Maybe the guy in the dock just needed a decent lawyer.

The Scottish judiciary have shown little hesitation over the years in locking-up the 'men of violence' - with little social regard for how such violence comes about. These days, they seem as efficient in curbing the freedoms of not only those who merely imagine acts of violence, but also their legal representatives.

An impressive campaign is presently underway to defend Glasgow-based human rights lawyer Aamer Anwar, who is facing a serious contempt of court action following post-trial comments he made on the conviction of his client Mohammed Atif Siddiqui. Jailed for eight years, Atif is the first person to be convicted in Scotland under the Terrorism Act 2006.

The severity of the sentence handed-down in this case is ready-evidence of how the Muslim community in the UK is being monitored and demonised. Atif was punished for accessing 'subversive' internet sites, illustrating the state's new understanding and application of 'thought control'. Now the establishment is going after those who defend those 'errant' surfers.

But the effort to silence Aamer has only heightened his political and legal profile. During a recent meeting (on Palestine and Resistance) at Glasgow University, Aamer recounted the time when, as a student there, he had his mouth kicked-in by police in nearby Ashton Lane after being chased for putting up campaign flyposters. When a bloodied Aamer asked one of the officers why they had resorted to such brutality, he replied: "That's what happens to black boys with big mouths".

As a fellow Glasgow student at the time, I recall the subsequent meeting, with Aamer, broken teeth in hand, declaring that he wouldn't be silenced. Aamer and campus others had organised a large occupation of the Principal's office (which, with limited persuasion, I found myself part of) in protest at the incoming abolition of student grants. The boot in Aamer's mouth was, no doubt, meant as a timely warning to this up-and-coming activist.

Sixteen years later, a more 'respectable' boot is being used to effect Aamer's 'compliance'. But, as with the cruder methods noted, the present efforts of the state have only served to embolden Aamer, while giving voice to an expansive network of support, now including leading lawyers, MPs and MSPs.

Listening to Aamer speak made me reflect on just how more focused those forces of compliance have become in seeking to punish the "black boys with big mouths" - or, "Muslims and others with legitimate political concerns", as we may more reasonably call them.

As ever, populist media demonology has played its dutiful part. The Daily Record, for example - Scotland's 'very own' exponent of homely, dumb-the-mind hubris - predictably had Aamer down as an "out of order" "firebrand lawyer" daring to question the tariff handed-down on this "wanabee suicide bomber".

This ugly branding of lawyers as 'friends of terrorists' is being conflated - again, through perverse media language - with the growing vilification of immigrants. The assaults on asylum seekers' rights is consistent with the government's push-and-shove determination to secure increased emergency powers of arrest and detention.

The ongoing Home Office persecution of Palestinian refugee and political activist Fatima Helow here in Glasgow is one such disturbing example of the 'asylum-seeker-terrorist-suspect' agenda. Fatima is currently living in a state of demeaning limbo after losing her leave-to-stay appeal. Witness to the brutal massacre at Shatila refugee camp in Lebanon, Fatima has also seen a contentious judicial review of her case refused.

The attack on Aamer Anwar is an evident part of that same process: in this case, a denial of the right to speak on behalf of Atif and his family; a creeping erosion of the lawyer-client relationship.

This mood of state-judicial intolerance is apparent elsewhere, too. In Ireland, the government is trying to pass legislation making lawyers financially liable for the court costs of failed immigration cases undertaken, thus undermining the fundamental rights of non-nationals to legal representation.

These attacks are a new front in the climate of state-imposed fear, a way of warning human-rights-minded lawyers like Aamer Anwar to 'consider their careers' before 'opening their mouths'.

Meanwhile, as Aamer awaits a date for the contempt hearing, he has accepted a well-backed nomination to run for Rector of Glasgow University. A nice irony - and indication of a principled lawyer unlikely to keep his mouth shut.

John

The cancer of Israeli apartheid

It's not always easy making the case for basic political justice, human rights and an end to Israel's apartheid treatment of the Palestinian people. But we try.

Three young Israeli men appeared recently at our Glasgow Palestine Human Rights Campaign stall, with, quite obviously, more than a passing interest in what we were doing. One, in particular, spoke in dismissive tones about the Palestinians, asking me, rather mockingly, if I'd ever actually been to Israel and whether I knew anything about how the Palestinians live. I replied that, no, I'd never been to Israel, only to Palestine, quite recently, in fact, and that, yes, my colleagues and I had been able to see first-hand the shocking ways in which the Palestinians are being forced to live under an illegal occupation.

A little annoyed, he asked whether I, at least, accepted that, being "a democracy," Israel has the right to exist and defend itself. But Israel is not a democracy, I corrected him. It's an apartheid state. Two contradictory entities. He seemed genuinely puzzled by this possibility, apparently struggling to understand that a state with a discriminatory polity akin to apartheid South Africa is not a functioning democracy even in the conventional liberal sense of the term.

Apartheid state, he demanded. Says who? Well, Desmond Tutu, who knows a bit about such matters, and ex-US President Jimmy Carter, for starters. He gave up on me at this point and moved-on to one of my friends.

The walk-away-with-shaking-head routine is usually reasonable evidence of a bankrupt argument. And, when making sure to maintain one's own calm demeanour, it's always helpful to remember that the Palestinians' case is actually fixed in international law. In short, it has legal, as well as moral, right on it's side.

But, such exchanges also reaffirm to me that these young people are themselves products of a siege-mentality state with no actual concern for the legalities and moralities of the issue. More basically, they see themselves as upholders of something which they already have and fully intend to keep. In effect, right and wrong doesn't actually feature in their comprehension of the problem. The more revealing point, rather, is their own incomprehension at the thought of having to relinquish what they've taken and now assume to be their own.

Ask such people how they can justify the illegal settlements pock-marking the West Bank? They can't. Certainly not in any legally-convincing way, given all the UN resolutions calling on Israel to withdraw. So, they evade or dismiss the question.

What about the illegality of the 'separation' wall, as decreed by the International Court? Again, there's no rational argument offered, only standard, convenient rationalisations, such as, 'the wall is there to keep terrorists out.' No mention of its primary purpose in annexing yet more Palestinian land. It's the same shrugging evasions and denials acutely evident in the body language and responses of young conscripts at Israeli checkpoints.

Another seemingly obvious question, thus, arises: how can a person or group acting in a human rights capacity ever hope to persuade such people to observe others' rights when those people have no functioning interest in human rights? If nothing else, there's useful lessons to be learned here in observing the psychology of denial and capacity of people to remain locked-into such a defensive mindset.

Yet, that psychology is itself deeply-informed by Israel's state apartheid policies - de jure and de facto. And from this comes a naturalised language of casual racism, a rooted indifference to others' pain; a socialised grooming in doctrinaire-speak which allows and validates the dehumanisation of an entire people.

The Palestinians, thus, become socially framed as 'a problem' - not a people - to be contained, managed, corralled, humiliated, ground-down and demoralised until they themselves have no reasonable expectation of being treated as human equals.

The courageous Jewish writer/academic Ilan Pappe has documented the historical origins of this discriminatory treatment in his fine tome, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine. Here, and in other definitive writings, Pappe records how the removal and brutalisation of a people since the Nakba (catastrophe) in 1948 became a vital and accepted narrative for Israelis, part of their 'national duty' to 'defend the homeland'. Thus, the racist treatment of Palestinians is still largely unrecognised:

"The plan decided upon on 10 March 1948, and above all its systematic implementation in the following months, was a clear-cut case of an ethic cleansing operation, regarded under international law today as a crime against humanity." (1)

The subsequent denial and hiding of this mass crime has been facilitated by official Israeli historiography, such as the concocted story of Palestinian "voluntary transfers". (2) This, Pappe reminds us, is part of "the cognitive system that allowed the world to forget, and enabled the perpetrators to deny, the crime the Zionist movement committed against the Palestinian people in 1948...I have no doubt that the absence so far of a paradigm of ethnic cleansing is part of the reason why the denial of the catastrophe has been able to go on for so long." (3)

And from this flows a message of ethnic superiority and refusal to admit culpability which permeates Israeli society today.

Here's a particularly shocking illustration of that "cognitive system", revealing such discriminatory indifference even in the area of critical health-care for Palestinian children.

Farah's story

Jamal Harma and his family eke-out a living in Balata refugee camp, Nablus. In January 2005, Jamal's daughter Farah, then ten, was diagnosed with bone cancer in her right knee. Through an arrangement between the Palestinian Authority (PA) and Assuta Hospital in Tel Aviv, she was permitted to be seen by doctors there instead of the rudimentary clinics in the West Bank. Jamal was prohibited from accompanying her as he didn't have a travel permit. Instead, Farah made the arduous daily journeys from Nablus with her grandmother.

At the initial consultation, Farah received the most cursory of examinations and was sent home with an ink mark around the tumour indicating the area to be treated with radiation. No interdisciplinary team saw Farah, as standard practice, and no effort was made by an oncologist to determine the precise form of cancer. Her 'case notes' amounted to a paltry two pages.

In March 2005, increasingly anxious about his daughter's condition, Jamal took Farah to Ichilov Hospital, Tel Aviv, where they saw Dr. Yehuda Kollender, deputy head of orthopaedic oncology. Here's Jamal's painful recollection of that meeting:

"When we met Kollender," says Jamal, "he asked me: 'Why did you come to us so late?' I told him: 'She's being treated at Assuta.' He asked me: 'What are you doing there at Assuta?' I said: 'What do you mean? Radiation.' Kollender took off his glasses, looked at me and clutched his head in his hands. He told his secretary not to let anyone else in the room. 'We're in big trouble,' he told me. I didn't understand what was happening. He called Assuta Hospital, while I was sitting there. I don't know whom he spoke to there. 'How could such a thing happen?' he asked them. 'You'll be responsible. This wouldn't happen to a child from Israel.'"

Dr. Kollender later recalled:

"A little girl came to me with an advanced and neglected tumor, and when her father told me that the girl was getting radiation at Assuta, my hair stood on end. Every expert in oncology, actually every specialist in oncology or orthopedics, knows that the standard treatment all over the world for such a case is chemotherapy, followed by limb-preserving surgery, and then another round of chemotherapy."

But the damage to Farah had been done. The case is now subject to a civil suit against Assuta. The lawsuit papers show that Farah was also treated with a long-outdated Cobalt 60 radiation machine, reserved only for Palestinian patients. Two investigators were subsequently told by Assuta's medical director that the machine did not fulfil the necessary requirements for treating Israelis and was being used only to meet the 'needs' of the PA. The investigators confirmed the director's admission that the machine was being used just to make money, noting, with shock, her concluding remark: "It's not my problem".

The human rights-based attorney Michael Sfard who filed the case describes it as a "constitutional lawsuit"; "a suit about constitutional injustices when an organization or individual infringes on the rights of another person". Safrd's indictment comes with this scathing conclusion: "when Assuta was asked to clarify its numerous faults, what was uncovered was an indifferent and racist system motivated by financial considerations".

That "indifferent and racist system" is beyond Jamal's comprehension, and was, tragically, the difference between life and death for Farah:

"Eventually, the doctors said they had done all they could. Farah was very sick. The tumor had spread to her lungs. She had trouble breathing and had to rely on an oxygen tank. "I'm a devout man. As a Muslim, I believe that everything is in God's hands. At that point I understood that her fate was in God's hands, and we came back home." "

Little Farah died. But her death is not only due to medical negligence. It's rooted in a system of state discrimination.

Hayah's story

Farah's story is connected with the case of Hayah Abu-Qabatya, another Palestinian child discarded by the system. Hayah also died never having received proper treatment. Her case is party to the lawsuit:

"As in the case of Farah Harma, [the same doctor] looked at her leg and drew with a marker to designate the area meant to receive radiation. The lawsuit says that he subsequently sent her for radiation treatment without doing any medical tests to obtain a more precise diagnosis of the type of cancer and of the girl`s medical condition. In this case, too, he failed to go through standard treatment planning or consult with a pediatric oncologist...No physical examination was performed and she also received radiation from the Cobalt 60 machine."

Hayah's father recalls how the true extent of the problem, as with Farah, was discovered too late:

"When my daughter finished the treatments, they asked us to come back in two months,` says the father. `A week later, my daughter said that her stomach hurt. I took her to Al-Husseini Hospital. She had an X-ray. When the doctor saw the film he went nuts. He said: 'I don`t understand, I don`t understand! How did the disease spread like this?'...Further examination found that the cancer had spread into the girl`s abdominal cavity and lungs. Hayah began chemotherapy at Al-Husseini Hospital, but her condition rapidly deteriorated, and the treatments were halted. `At the hospital they told me, 'Take her home, it will be better that way,' says Abu-Qabatya."

There's the pain of losing a child. The knowledge of medical mistreatment is a terrible added burden. But how more awful to know that such loss is symptomatic of a state's racist treatment of an entire people?

"Hayah Abu-Qabatya died at home in the village of Yata, on Thursday, October 13, 2005. She was just 12 years old. In the last days of her life, she slept because of the strong painkillers she was given. "The whole time she was being treated at Assuta, I tried to hide from her that it was cancer, so as not to break her," says her father. "But she quickly understood what was going on. A few days after we came back from the hospital, she asked me, 'Daddy, am I going to die?' and I didn't know what to answer. On the Friday of the Ramadan holiday, I came back from prayers and sat beside her. It was 12 noon. She opened her eyes for a moment, looked at me and then closed them."

But, as the responses of some Israeli doctors and officials in this report shows, there is also a strong and enduring capacity for those on the dominant side to care about their fellow human beings.

Hayah's father retains kind praise for the human rights volunteers who were always there to help his daughter through the checkpoints en route to hospital and to offer stay-over accommodation.

This aspect of the story is a ray of hope, a reminder of how people are ever-capable of acting in a spirit of humanity, able to contemplate the possibility of a just political system and equitable society.

Ilan Pappe and other key anti-Zionist campaigners participated in a major conference recently on the case for a one-state solution, the most alarming of all scenarios for Israel's apartheid state and its adherents. For it would not only force a post-apartheid structure of equal political and civil rights. It would necessitate the humane treatment of Palestinians as equal people.

Alas, all that's too late for Farah and Hayah. One can only hope for a day when their brothers and sisters can live in a land of open justice, equal health-care and common dignity.

John

------------

(1) Ilan Pappe, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, p x111 (2006, Oneworld Pub.).
(2) Ibid, p xiv.
(3) Ibid, p xvi.

Victims, voices and celluloid dissent

In a recent speech on media and cultural propaganda, John Pilger commented that The Deerhunter is the only movie that ever caused him to shout out in protest inside a cinema.

Pilger was objecting to its selective indulgence of American suffering, a theme all the harder to challenge given that the film was so "brilliantly made". Likewise, notes Pilger, Oliver Stone's Platoon may have offered graphic images of the ugly war in Vietnam, but - like the rest of his Vietnam trilogy (Heaven and Earth, and Born on the Fourth of July) - it's primarily concerned with the angst of American soldiers, offering no meaningful Vietnamese voice or experience. In short, it's about seeing America as the principal victim.

Stone made 'amends' for his 'radical output' with the more recent World Trade Center and is now embarking on the fourth of his Vietnam films, Pinkville , examining the cover-up of the My Lai massacre. It stars the arch-conservative Bruce Willis.

But, if Hollywood is still to make a convincing Vietnamese-sided film, do other current cinematic and theatrical war dramas, including the 'war on terror', give appropriate voice and experience to the main victims?

Hollywood would have us believe it's 're-found' it's own 'critical' voice. But, even for the more independent film companies, anti-war doesn't mean giving a 'lead role' to the Iraqi, or any other conquered, people.

Producers like Robert Redford, 'speaking for' liberal America at large, may be getting a little more room these days to shout-down Bush's lies about Iraq and challenge the neo-cons' 'extra-judicial 'practices. Yet, this is still a safe distance from allowing a voice to those in Fallujah, Kabul and Gaza who actually experience the crushing impact of the Pentagon's and its associates' corporate-driven warfare.

Ah well, at least there's even more parts available for Arabs to play terrorists these days.

The current crop of 'leftfield' US films, such as Rendition and Lions for Lambs, are a kind of zeitgeist expression of the discomfort America is feeling over its warmongering foreign policy and use of authorised torture around the globe. Similar liberal-minded output from George Clooney (Syriana and Good Night, and Good Luck) overhangs this mood. Yet, on closer inspection, much of this is really a cry for the 'lost American ideal', illustrating the safe boundaries of liberal America's celluloid dissent. Redford et al may be a welcome alternative to the Bruce Willis-type gush of US heroes in hostile foreign places (Willis is still, apparently, planning an Iraq-based action thriller championing the US combat unit Deuce Four). But, as with Pilger's 'reviews' of The Deerhunter and Platoon, US cinema, 'big box' or 'indie', still offers little true experience of the victimised other.

Brit-side voices

A more promising contender, this side of the Atlantic, is the recent TV drama, Britz (Channel 4, 31 October, 1 November 2007). Despite a little artistic licence here and there, Peter Kosminsky's absorbing film carries a number of thought-provoking devices serving to outline the fuller context of the 'war on terrorism'. We have, for example, one of the lead characters, Sohail, Riz Ahmed (of The Road to Guantanamo), surveying the complex landscape for British Muslims while being drawn-into the service of MI5. In one scene, we see how the police's racist treatment of Sohail's friends conflicts with his decision to spy on them and his community. In another chilling sequence, the other main character, Nasima, Sohail's sister, offers a very profound statement on our collective "responsibility" for allowing Blair to act in this criminal way, thus provoking and raising the potential for violent Islamic responses.

Britz was, at least, a welcome respite from the facile Spooks, with its risible take on the 'dark underbelly' of British intelligence. In it's attempt to play the 'sophisticated' plot line of dark-but-still-decent MI5 good guys, the US is currently being portrayed as a malignant agent provocateur seeking to implicate Iran and up the war on terror ante, while our all-action heroes rush around trying to stop fanatical Algerians blowing-up London. Another recent episode had the intrepid MI5ers cutting through a garden fence-like wire to enter a supposedly top-security installation hiding America's most secret nuclear weapon. Yet, behind all the racy plot lines, 'self-examination' and 'admitting' of dirty deeds, the predominant voice remains that of our vigilant spymasters protecting us from renegade insiders and demonic outsiders.

Staged voices

As Edward Said shows in Culture and Imperialism, populist narrative has always played a vital role in helping to demonise, omit or remove the non-Western other. It's as though the colonised and occupied have no valid part in their own historical drama.

Alas, I had that uneasy feeling of the 'absent other' watching the finely-produced and performed (TV screening of) Black Watch. This play is assuredly not war propaganda. It's, in a certain 'unstated' and, thus, nuanced sense, an anti-war production. But it's also acutely lacking in any Iraqi voice or experience. And I don't just mean the inserted testimony of a victimised Iraqi.

It's almost impossible to fault John Tiffany's brilliant direction. Writer Gregory Burke has also allowed the play to have 'its own voice' through the gathered accounts of serving soldiers. It's more a 'pain of war' statement, rather than agitprop theatre, resulting in a poignant human story of brutalised young fighting men in an alienating land far from home.

But it's also a disappointingly one-sided representation of that pain and alienation.

Burke is, essentially, against the war, but unwilling to castigate the men or regiments who participate in it. This couples with his opposition to the MoD-imposed break-up of the Black Watch and reformation of it and other units into a single Scottish regiment.

In this spirit, Burke argues that Black Watch is first-and-foremost about the Black Watch and the psychology of soldiers being sent to, and returning from, war. And, yes, the piece can stand as a singular perspective on the war - the soldiers' story.

But does that story have moral validity without reference to those who are on the principal end of the Black Watch's actions? Indeed, to what extent should we 'elevate' those soldiers' stories in this form while their regiments help perpetuate the occupation and mass suffering in Iraq?

The related problem of Black Watch is its underlying endorsement of militarism, a theme which, while artistically displayed in the unfolding history of the regiment, too-readily 'celebrates' its esprit de corps. Black Watch may help us reflect on the horrors of war. But it also reinforces populist sentiments of 'benign militarism'.

At a time when the BBC and other elite-upholding media are serving to convey the idea of the 'mistaken war' - rather than the illegal and genocidal one that's actually happening - such output, arguably, serves to distract attention from the part UK forces have played in the invasion and killing.

There is a standard legal principle in such matters, still relevant from Nuremberg: the higher up the chain of command, the more culpable one is of war crimes. Blair, Brown and the generals should, thus, be standing at a dock in the Hague. But this doesn't entirely absolve those on the ground. Soldiers, though obeying orders and doing their job, are also responsible, legally and morally, for their actions.

Black Watch is not the jingoistic 'our boys at war' which an obedient media rallied-around from day one of the invasion. But it's still a troubling version of it. These soldiers are, of course, 'our boys'. But so also, to my way of thinking, are young Iraqis. They're all 'our boys' in a more inclusive, humanitarian sense. The principle, quite obviously, should extend to all suffering beings, male and female, young and old, caught-up in this wicked war and other conflicts.

In the week that saw the resilient Rose Gentle finally get judicial recognition for the loss of her Fusilier son Gordon in Iraq, Black Watch is a ready-reminder of the ways in which the state has, effectively, 'press-ganged' economically-fragile young people and sacrificed them in the supposed name of 'benign intervention'. But the play and the ruling might also cause us to reflect again on how we extend our understanding of human empathy with the forgotten of Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine and other oppressed lands.

Penn is mightier than the sword

With good timing, this week also saw the actor Sean Penn give an impressive BBC interview in which he talked of his travels to Iran (to report the 2005 elections), his opposition to Bush, and how he sees the need for such a common politics of humanity. Alongside his warnings of how Bush will continue to "lie" on Iran, Penn's admirable words help illustrate the kind of mutual regard we must feel for the presently suffering and imminently threatened other.

Interviewer: "You're known also for your politics, you're known for your strong views [on the Iraq war and US policy towards Iran...] Why have you not chosen to use your films in a more overtly political way?"

Sean Penn: "Well, I don't know that there's anything more overtly political than to be proactively human... I'm not interested in the word politics as an academic notion. I think that it's got to be [about]quality of life for people...for one individual...for everybody. And that's what politics ought to be about. It's really a one issue world. It's quality of life."

Penn added, in relation to Iran:

“My project is to cut through to some of the meaningless kind of spin that has numbed people from understanding that people are people everywhere, and to be able to go there and to report back some of the kind of very shared humanity that we all have, no matter where we are coming from.”

Penn shows that there are also other ways of acting. And the key motivation of his assumed role is a rejection of mainstream politics for a true politics of compassion. In his efforts to expose the "spin of fear" and how the powerful seek to "make life so much cheaper", Penn reminds us that, on-screen and off, we have a duty to consider and reflect the voice and experience of the victimised other.

John

No Plan, No Peace in Iraq – beWare BBC version

In an incisive inside story, BBC reporter John Ware takes us behind the political and diplomatic scenes to reveal that the US/UK had no effective plan to realise the peace in Iraq, and that the neo-con “crazies” should shoulder considerable blame for that set of mistakes.

Or does he?

At a surface level, this is the reading of No Plan, No Peace – the Inside Story of Iraq's Descent into Chaos (BBC, 28, 29 October 2007) that much of the public and even many anti-war adherents will, no doubt, have seen and accepted.

And if they do, it would be testament to Ware's capacity for crafted distortion and the BBC's willingness to make ever-refined excuses for the illegal and immoral actions of its political masters. Indeed, even among its finest catalogue of whitewashed output, we may struggle to find a better example of the BBC's 'good-warmonger – bad-warmonger' version of US/UK 'intervention' in Iraq.

Ware's film is actually the classic liberal version of the 'mistaken war': the 'mistake' of not having a pre-planned strategy for 'state-building' and formalisation of 'democratic structures'; the 'mistake' of extreme de-Ba'thification and disbanding of the Iraqi security services; the 'mistakes' of failing to anticipate the alienation of displaced Iraqis; and the 'mistaken' belief that the surge might still break the insurgency.

Completely absent from this version of the 'mistaken war' is any acknowledgment of its actual illegality or immorality. Nor, in Part 1 of this 'cutting-edge' exposé, does Ware deem it necessary to discuss the actual extent of the Iraqi death toll. A “few hundred thousand” may have died, he permits, in vague admission, as though the tragedy and suffering of so many people can be treated as a passing comment. Ware never thinks it appropriate to mention the Lancet and (complementary) ORB studies which reliably estimate in excess of 1.2 million people now dead as a direct consequence of the invasion.

The cast of goodfellas

Ware, instead, proceeds to introduce an extensive cast of the 'good-guy' warmongers. First-up is Colin Powell's ex-Chief of Staff, Colonel Larry Wilkerson, who confirms Ware's enquiry about Powell and his circle referring to Cheney and their neo-con cohorts as “the crazies”. Douglas Feith is also singled-out as being a particular “idiot”. Such statements are presented as a journalistic coup for Ware who seems unconcerned at the passé nature of these 'great revelations'. But they suit his purpose in building an apparent foundation for his 'shocking' thesis: that a cavalier-and-uncaring bunch of US neo-cons and a careless-but-dutiful UK had no serious understanding of how to plan and maintain an occupation.

It's instructive to see such a 'distinguished' cast of diplomatic, political and military elite eagerly participating in Ware's film. And why not, for it serves their purposes of being star players in this gentlemanly re-writing of history. In Ware's liberal revisionist treatise, Powell and his State Department people are feted as some kind of wronged and maligned faction, unable to realise their 'diplomatic' efforts and 'benign' planning policies. That, of course, didn't stop Powell himself going to the UN to sell Bush's war agenda. Nor did he or any of his 'concerned' coterie stand-up and declare their worries or abhorrence of the invasion at the time.

The cast of good-warmonger denialists keep on coming. In a telling 'cameo', US Ambassador and ex-Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) figure, Barbara Bodine talks of the neo-cons' antagonism towards the State Department, telling us, in sombre tones, that:

“This [Bush's] is the first truly ideological administration that we've ever had.”

Ware: “Ever, in the history of the United States?”

Bodine: “Ever, ever.”

Astonishingly, Ware accepts this assertion at face value, allowing it to sit in the pregnant silence as some kind of major disclosure.

I immediately thought of what Pilger recently said about it all being the fault of the “Bush gang”:

“And, yes, the Bush gang are extreme. But my experience is that they are no more than an extreme version of what has gone before. In my lifetime, more wars have been started by liberal Democrats than by Republicans. Ignoring this truth is a guarantee that the propaganda system and the war-making system will continue.”

(This, incidentally, is the same Bodine who obstructed the FBI's investigation into Bin Laden prior to 9/11.)

Ware continues with a standard re-hash of the false “45 minutes” claim, coupled with more mitigation from Powell's ex-aide that he really wanted “diplomacy and inspections”. Ware sees no contradiction either in Powell's other 'difference of opinion' in seeking double the number of US troops allowed by Rumsfeld. Powell's man infers that this was to help build and maintain the 'peace'. Yet, Ware has nothing to say about Powell's key role in prosecuting the war or his case for troop deployment. He's conspicuously quiet too on Wilkerson's claim that Jack Straw, Powell's UK cohort, was also a man of diplomacy.

The 'good Brits'

By this point, the other key theme in Ware's distorting film is unfolding: Bush, Cheney and the US high-command were 'fundamentally uncaring', while 'we' Brits were only 'incautious and misled'.

Sir Christopher Meyer, ex-UK Ambassador to Washington, affects his usual all-knowing manner in recounting his worries about the post-invasion aftermath and proclaimed efforts to:

“...above all, get them [Blair and his government] thinking about what's next.”

Never does it seemingly occur to Meyer that “above all” he should have been at the door of Downing Street, rushing round media studios, even taking to the streets with the millions of others, to denounce the invasion itself.

We also have an account of Condoleezza Rice 'ticking-off ' Meyer about his 'concerns', reminding him that the Iraqis were actually capable of planning their own reconstruction. We get more Whitehall mandarins talking reflectively about their “warnings” to Washington and, for good measure, Claire Short's 'searching' testimony on the inadequacy of the international aid and development efforts.

The UK's Foreign Office head, Lord Jay (2000-2006), offers varying 'diplomatic asides' on Washington's “dysfunctional administration”, asking, in rhetorical admission “...should we have had a better understanding?” Britain's other ex-ambassador to the US, Sir David Manning, claims that the UK had little sense of the imposing role the Department of Defense had in mind for the running of Iraq.

General Sir Mike Jackson is invited to add weight to Ware's 'mistaken war' thesis, while Britain's Major General Tim Cross (Senior Logistics Planner ) records his apparent “unease” over Rumsfeld's lack of military and civil planning. The 'academic' evidence of Professor Charles Tripp (School of Oriental and African Studies ) is, likewise, invoked to illustrate how ill-prepared the UK was even days before the invasion. Relating how the Department for International Development (DfID) had asked him to do “desk-based research on government structures in Iraq”, Tripp describes the lack of preparation as “surreal”.

Yet, more-tellingly, none of these people have a solitary word to say here about the fundamental illegality and immorality of the invasion itself.

While Ware is lining-up his eager cast of 'disillusioned insiders' on the UK side, his examinations of Jay Garner, Director of the Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance (ORHA), and Robert Bremer, head of the subsequent CPA, are of a more hostile nature. Not, an unreasonable view to take, of course. Both were arch-participants in the murderous brutality. However, Ware is more concerned here in highlighting their 'mistaken strategies' - rather than their criminality – and how their actions largely 'differed' from the UK's more 'pragmatic assessments'.

But there's still the 'goodfellas' on the US side to consider. ORHA official, Colonel Paul Hughes, for example, recounts how another of Rumsfeld's appointees to ORHA, Lawrence Di Rita, had made loud-soundings about the US having already given the Iraqis 'their freedom' and, thus, refusing to acknowledge their right to actual reconstruction. Hughes recalls his own reaction to Di Rita's belligerence:

“...holy hell, what are we here for, then? Why don't we all just go home?”

Di Rita's zealous thoughts need no further comment. More revealing is how Ware sees Hughes's response as some sort of honourable, good-guy remonstration. The impression is, thus, conveyed of a 'good war 'being hampered by 'bad-war' neo-cons. What Ware refuses to admit is that ALL these people were/are there as part of an illegal and - contrary to the fine-sounding ORHA title - inhumanitarian occupation.

Part 1 of No Plan, No Peace ends with this pre-summary from Ware:

“In Baghdad, the heat was burning-up what Iraqi goodwill there was from being liberated. The failure to provide electricity and water was stoking anti-American feeling.”

Ware has Colonel Tim Cross amplify this selective version of the invasion. It was like “snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.”

More 'mistakes' and 'good-guy' 'regrets'

The 'mistaken war' line is developed in Part 2 with Ware proceeding to question the lack of planning to deal with the insurgency. Bremer's 'new brush' approach is scrutinised, with Ware introducing old Washington favourite Ahmed Chalabi, head of the Iraqi National Congress, to question Bremer's handling of the situation.

Deeply-absorbed in this claim and counter-claim about securing an 'effective strategy', one is easily-led into Ware's false agenda on 'the problems' of reconstruction and securing of a 'pluralist democracy'. Other UK-sided 'good guys' are invited to sum-up the catalogue of incompetence, but never to comment on the illegal occupation or their own participation in it. We even have the tragi-comic utterances of Sir Hilary Synnott (attached to the CPA) bemoaning his lack of funds to entertain and co-opt the Iraqi tribal leaders. How very old-colonial. In similar vein, Ware thinks that we should consider the snubbing of UK Ambassador Sir Jeremy Greenstock by the US in Iraq as a further troubling indication of the good-guy-bad-guy relations.

In particular, Bremer is taken-to-task for pursuing an extreme form of de-Ba'thification, serving to drive alienated Iraqis over to the insurgency. As Ware, in his gravitas-laden voice reminds us: “The Americans were trying to spread freedom.” But they were going about it the wrong way.

While Bremer talks-up General Petraeus's surge “strategy”, Greenstock expresses “regret” over the suffering of the Iraqi people. There's footage of UK troops, portrayed as some kind of benevolent force, training-up a proto-Iraqi army. Even the damning footage of British soldiers ruthlessly beating-up Iraqi civilians is passed-over as a “shocking” but atypical incident.

Alas, Ware has to concede, “Basra is not the showcase for democracy that London and Washington had hoped.” But why does Ware assume that either the UK or US were ever seriously interested in democracy?

Ware leaves us with this final thought:

“Somehow, with all our shared history, a Prime Minister and a President abandoned a principle that's been an iron law of warfare since Napoleon. Never take the first step to war without planning every bit as carefully for what comes afterwards.”

So, the dark story is now safely contextualised by Ware: the war itself was noble, only the war plan, or lack of, was at fault.

And there we have it, an 'inside account' of disregard and incompetence which, together, serves to separate the good-warmongers from the bad warmongers. While the 'bad guys' have pursued a 'thoughtless war', the 'good guys' have opened-up, in 'candid', 'concerned' fashion, about their part in this disastrous but, still, honourable invasion to remove Saddam.

Again, one shouldn't be surprised to see such output lauded as 'cutting-edge' reportage, with the general public expected to be in thrall to Ware and his 'vigilant' BBC peers for bringing us these 'vital insights'. In actual truth, we have here a classic exercise in gate-keeping liberal propaganda, with a lavish cast of denialists and apologists permitted open-forum to register and record their own personal and political 'authentications'. At Ware's careful discretion, they have been eulogised as moral players in a 'benevolent occupation'.

Maybe they'll see Ware's film as a timely 'lesson learned', and that all we need is a little 'fine policy-tuning' for our next big adventure in Iran.

John

Trident, the SNP summit and Brian's braces

It's been illuminating this week to observe the varying admonitions of New Labour, their political stable-mates and much of the media over the Scottish Government's summit on Trident and its proposed replacement (Glasgow, 22 October 2007). What some lack in the standard practice of demonisation, others make-up for in 'blethering' trivialisation.

Here, for example, is MP Eric Joyce, that dutifully-alert sergeant of New Labour militarism, castigating First Minister Alex Salmond for daring to contact the world's Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NNPT) signatories - including, 'the shame of it all', Iran and Zimbabwe - asking for their help in removing Trident:

"Alex Salmond simply cannot know whether he is making damaging assertions or not because he does not know the nature of our relationships with many of these complex and difficult countries...He has written to some very despotic and dangerous individuals, which we have very sensitive and complex relationships with, and treated it like a weekly political football. It is potentially very damaging to our national security."

Ah, "national security". That oldest of chestnuts. Oh, for something, at least, more originally mendacious. Nor can we have our 'little parliament' exchanging thoughts with these 'dark foe' states - particularly while our 'big parliament' pursues its 'noble' work in Iraq and Afghanistan. Joyce and his political suits conveniently forget that Iran and Zimbabwe are still party to the NNPT, and were written-to on that inclusive basis. Moreover, unlike the UK, Iran hasn't blatantly ignored the NNPT.

Among the other usual suspects attacking the purpose and cost of the summit was Scottish Liberal Democrats leader, Nicol Stephen:

"Once again the SNP will spend government time and money squabbling with Westminster rather than getting on with the job they were elected to do. Ministers can't tell us how many extra teachers they will need to meet their promises to cut class sizes, yet they are happy to spend time, money and effort on a summit working out how to pick yet another fight with Westminster."

Yes, Nicol. Maybe it's just possible to do all these things, and more, at the same time. The 'irresponsible allocation of time and money' argument is, of course, another familiar complement to the 'national interest' trope.

The summit, attended by the Green Party's Patrick Harvie, but none of the other invited opposition, also heard Ministry of Defence spokesman Neil Smith warn of the 7000 job losses and cost to the local economy should Faslane close.

There are always, to invoke Wilde, those who know the price of everything and the value of nothing. And, I'm sure, in perverse logic, that such utterings include denying the £76 billion price of Trident's replacement for the 'value' it supposedly brings to the economy.

Actually, I find it offensive to engage in such cost-benefit analyses. The case for re-training workers and economic diversification is all there. But, the fundamental immorality of Trident and mass threat to human life should be a sufficient imperative for disarmament in itself.

Media cover

The main outcome of the summit was the setting-up of a special advisory group, backed by the Scottish Government, to consider practical ways of blocking the MoD's Trident replacement plans, very possibly on environmental and planning grounds.

But, again, should our elected leaders be 'wasting time' indulging in these 'idealistic' gatherings?

Ever-the-voice of 'cautious practicality' (maybe his trademark, on-screen trouser braces are symbolic of such), here's our very own - that is, BBC Scotland's - Brian Taylor with a few 'blethering' reminders of what 'really matters' to the electorate and why Salmond's little devolved band have no real cause to be 'bothering' these important international ministers:

"Can this summit decide anything on Trident itself? No, defence policy is reserved. That is why this was a convocation of the modest and the good in a posh Glasgow pub-cum-theatre at the top of Byres Road rather than a full-scale governmental gathering."

A neat and quick put-down from Brian. But, maybe, he thinks, a little too quick, remembering that all-important need for BBC 'balance':

"Does that mean it’s a complete waste of time? That’s where opinion divides. SNP Ministers say it’s part of their National Conversation – and they’re entitled to examine options within devolved powers for thwarting the practical implementation of the Trident upgrade. Critics say that those same Ministers should start delivering on the promises in their manifesto which dealt with substantive devolved issues such as policing, schools and housing. They say this is another example of SNP Ministers indulging in gesture politics while neglecting their own in-tray. Are the Nationalists out to gain political capital? Unquestionably. They are presenting a direct political challenge to Labour, particularly Labour in Scotland. They are after votes."

The "critics say" part is, of course, a convenient way of imparting Taylor's own thoughts on the matter. Again, though, in the spirit of BBC 'fairness', 'objectivity' and token-gesture caveats, Brian allows that:

"...perhaps there is a balance to be struck. Arguably, it would be somewhat strange if the SNP offered no resistance whatsoever to Trident. Their opposition to the nuclear deterrent is of long-standing. Further, as the elected administration at Holyrood, they have a right, if not a duty, to consider wider issues of concern to the Scottish people."

A high sentiment, indeed - alas, tempered by our Brian's more immediate suspicions of voters' priorities:

"I suspect most neutral observers would concede that Trident is of passing interest to Scotland."

That would be the kind of "neutral observer" Taylor sees in himself, no doubt, with the same kind of "passing interest" in the issue. And just to round-off a polished performance in "neutral" BBC comment, we're left with this last little chiding of uppity politicians and those 'parochial' anti-nuclear crusaders:

"Against that, though, there is some substance, is there not, in the Labour complaint that the SNP initiative in contacting the 189 countries who are members of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty risks running across the UK’s diplomatic remit. Don’t think we can push that one too far, though. I cannot see the bells ringing at the UN when the news breaks that Bruce Crawford is on his feet in Byres Road giving it laldy to an audience of unions, church leaders, Greenpeace et al. In general, SNP Ministers will be judged as a Scottish government not by their stance on Trident – but by their success or otherwise on those very devolved issues advance [sic] by their critics today."

Right enough, the "risks" of crossing "the UK's diplomatic remit" can't be ignored. I wonder how Brian rates those "risks" in relation to what lurks in the sub silos at Faslane. Or maybe such thoughts don't arise very much in the life of Brian.

Unlike Taylor, the Herald's Iain MacWhirter had, to his credit, the good grace to state some of the more obvious, inconvenient, truths about the UK's violation of the NNPT and the Scottish Government's legitimate interest in the issue:

"...David Cairns, the Scotland Office minister, says that Alex Salmond should be sorting out the free personal care instead of "cavorting across the world stage with his discredited loony-left policies" and giving comfort to our enemies. Well, they are also his loony policies, since Labour is still formally committed to pursuing "multilateral nuclear disarmament" under a defence policy which dates from the late 1980s. If he is saying that the presence of an anti-nuclear Scottish Government representative at the NNPT talks might be an embarrassment, then fair enough. But Britain has every cause to be embarrassed, since we've driven a coach and horses through the NNPT by renewing the Trident missile system. Article VI of the NNPT requires signatory nations to work toward "cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament". The government insists that developing a new generation of Trident does not run counter to this commitment, but many disagree, including Matrix Chambers, Cherie Blair's own law firm."

Ah well, these are all little incidentals that shouldn't detain Holyrood, the public or our vigilant media. Best let Westminster get on with applying its "remit". Know your place, Mr Salmond and all you bothersome peaceniks.

As I sign-off here, the metaphor of Brian's braces properly formulates in my mind. They serve a kind of back-up function - belt and braces - suggesting that where Eric's and Nicol's Trident-upholding efforts aren't enough to keep the political trousers up, Brian's dependable BBC braces will help ensure they don't fall around their political ankles, thus fully-exposing the bare truth beneath.

I hope that isn't a too-disturbing image for you, dear readers.

John

Quartet bias: the UN's pro-Israel leanings

The United Nations is “siding too much with Israel” and “failing to take account of the violation of Palestinian human rights”.
(Channel 4 News, 15 October 2007.)

That's the considered opinion of leading UN human rights envoy Professor John Dugard.

Dugard believes that the Middle East Quartet (the US, European Union, Russia and the UN) has “ignored the human rights aspect of the dispute”, and that at the forthcoming 'peace conference' in the US “full attention should be given to” the illegalities of the Wall, West Bank settlements, military checkpoints and continuing incursions.

Dugard alleges that “the UN is no longer seen as an impartial and even-handed mediator in the dispute” and that “by siding too much with Israel and by failing to take account of the violation of Palestinian human rights, the United Nations has lost that image of impartiality.”

He further declares that the UN's participation in the Quartet is merely serving to disguise the latter's pro-Israeli agenda, and that the UN's own 'integrity' is being compromised in the process: “There's no doubt that the United Nations is being used to legitimise the Quartet and if that is its sole purpose, I believe the United Nations should reconsider its position.”

Elsewhere, the UN Human Rights Council's Israeli-Palestinian investigator said that there must be real "considerations of fairness" behind the work of the Quartet.

Dugard now proposes to write to the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon urging that the UN withdraw from the Quartet until it demonstrates a meaningful resolve to observe and defend Palestinian human rights.

UNashamed

It's another damning indictment of the UN's back-room adherence to US foreign policy, and all the more biting as it comes from a key UN insider. I'm reminded here of how former UN humanitarian envoy to Iraq, Denis Halliday, resigned in protest at the UN's failure to challenge the West's murderous sanctions policy in Iraq.

Professor Dugard's admirable disclosures also give indication of the UN's slavish appointment of Tony Blair as their Quartet envoy. In the Channel 4 News interview with Dugard, Jon Snow repeated media reports which claimed that Blair “has expressed shock and surprise at some of the damage that has been done to the Palestinian territories by the wall.” Snow asked Dugard: “Do you think that, perhaps, the West is at last waking up to what's going on over there?” Dugan replied: “Well, I'm surprised that Mr Blair was not aware of this when he was prime minister...after all there was a 2004 decision/advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice holding that the construction of the wall is illegal, and Mr Blair distanced himself from that finding.”

Dugard's comments on the UN's co-opted participation in the Quartet is yet more proof of its ongoing genuflection to the US. How can a body which declared Blair's actions over Iraq illegal now consider him a 'dove' to be sent to the Middle East? As they say, you couldn't make it up.

We should pay very close attention to what Professor Dugard is saying here. For his words contain a prescient message of what kind of placatory offerings are being hatched for the upcoming talks. Blair may be, apparently, "shocked" by what he's seen in the West Bank. But not shocked enough to call for the complete removal of the West Bank settlements and deconstruction of the Apartheid Wall. Rather, his real task, as implicitly exposed by Dugard, is to help sell an Israeli-US defined 'peace package', with all of Olmert's substantive demands realised.

Again, Dugard sees all-too-clearly the stark imbalance of such priorities in his reminder that Palestinian human rights must be the determining issue for any just and peaceful settlement. Despite the recent Abbas-Olmert meetings and Rice's affirmations that the US “mean business” this time, it's clear that another post-Oslo stitch-up is in the offing. And, of course, how can there be any legitimate deal at Annapolis without the presence of Hamas, the democratically-elected administration? That would have been like excluding Sinn Fein or the ANC from the political table in Northern Ireland and South Africa.

As the Quartet and an obedient media play-along with Rice's "time for a Palestinian state" charade, it's heartening to see and hear this kind of truthful insight and moral statement on the real processes of Western-UN 'diplomacy'.

John