The anti-Israel party?

newstatesman.com' s weekly tour of the political blogosphere with your guide Paul Evans

By Paul Evans Published 09 January 2009 13:34

Eyes on Gaza

With Parliament has yet to return from recess, our MP's attention turned this week to the desperate situation in the Middle East – prompting bloggers to deliver forthright advice to their elected representatives. Nick Clegg's demand for an arms embargo on Israel, and for EU-Israel co-operation to be suspended attracted particular attention. Jonathan Fryer was proud of his party leader and believed that he had "...seized the moral high ground on this issue, while Gordon Brown and David Cameron have proved to be pathetic straw men," though for Iain Dale it was evidence of the Lib Dems becoming an "anti-Israel party".

The demarcation of sympathies between the left and right over the issue is not as clear as might be imagined. Among bloggers of the libertarian right, disagreement flared as Devil's Kitchen drew attention to pro-Palestinian rightist href="http://bastardoldholborn.blogspot.com/2009/01/warning.html?showComment=1231106460000#c5818421562595307579">Old Holborn's posting of a video alleging to show an Israeli strike on Gazan civilians, which DK and Peter Risdon claim in fact shows the aftermath of an accidental explosion at a Hamas rally.

Lenin's Tomb was among the scores of left-wing blogs posting consistently on Gaza. Profoundly frustrated by president-elect Obama's refusal to issue any comment on the situation, he contended:

"Obama has spoken out on a number of issues, including the economy and the bail-out, so his sudden pretence that he is cleaving to the 'one president at a time' rule (the one that he just invented as a rationalisation for remaining schtum) is an unconvincing one."

Meanwhile, at Harry's Place, stalwarts of the pro-Israeli left, guest poster Alexander Hitchens questioned the 'moderate' credentials of MPAC UK.

Stumbling and Mumbling's Chris Dillow was a rare voice among bloggers, insisting that he doesn't care about the conflict. Yet he offers some interesting insight, tackling href="http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3649878,00.html">Adi Dvir's assertion that Palestinians hold their fate in the own hands.

He cites social science in support of his thesis that ordinary Gazans cannot realistically be expected to stand in opposition to Gaza. He concludes that: "I could find similar or worse tosh from Hamas supporters, if I could be bothered to look."

Perhaps the most thoughtful post of the week came from the Kingdom
blog, which seeks to apply Kantian ethics to current events.

Alternative proposals for an ultimate solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict are explored, including the 'federation' approach and the fascinating idea of bi-nationalism. Well worth a read.

Around the World

In Burma, Aye Maung posting on the Burma Blogger's Network reported on the alleged rape and murder of a 7-year old girl from the country's minority Karen community, at the hands of a Burmese soldier.

"The family of the victims and the village headman urged the battalion commander to investigate the crime. However, the commander didn't take any action," she quoted a representative of the Karen Women's Organisation as saying.

Rape is regularly used as a weapon of war in this conflict zone. Don't expect to read much about the Karen people on British blogs.

Video of the Week

Too many videos circulating on the blogs this week are of acts of violence. As a foil to this, I offer you Timor by Shakira, possibly the single worst political pop song ever written.

Quote of the Week

"Opposing terrorism is a public good. And public goods are often
under-supplied by rational agents."

Stumbling and Mumbling

More from Paul Evans

16 comments

Fri, 2009-01-09 16:12 — winston1

I would like to know if why there are so many people out there that aganist the action that Isreal is taking to protect it's population? Would you not defend your family if someone kept on harassing them all the time? As years come and go the terrorist are trying to make their presents know through the word. There are a bunch of cowards out there just standing by and letting these animals get theit way. It is time that someone stand up to these bullies and teach them a good lesson. Their are lucky that I am not the leader of Isreal, because I would have carpet bomb their butts.

Fri, 2009-01-09 20:08 — gez pearce

Paul
A good summary but you keep making the point that Harry’s place is pro war left.
I would say pro war south park US republican.
Forget the obvious neoconservative sentiments on the site.
They believe very much in a liberal economic and social conservative agenda.
They were very pro McCain.
Name one writer at the place who will not be voting for Cameron or who didn’t vote for Boris.
Paul if you think I am incorrect could you please tell me one difference between the views of the place and say Michael Gove or Matthew D’Ancona.
So don’t refer to the site as a leftists site.

Fri, 2009-01-09 20:33 — Paul Evans2

Harry's Place ran numerous posts about the US election and as far as I recall, none were "pro McCain" in any sense.

Have no idea how anyone at the NS votes - don't care.

Fri, 2009-01-09 20:57 — gez pearce

Paul
You still have not answered the question.
Name one difference between the the Cameron right and the Place.
It is a right wing site not left.
Which is fair enough but I do dislike dishonesty.
Also I was talking about the Place and their voting habits not the NS.

Fri, 2009-01-09 21:02 — Paul Evans2

I don't write for Harry's Place, just read it now and again - but I'd say probably that Harry's Place takes a great deal more interest in trade unionism, welfare, gay rights, gender equality and anti-fascism than the Cameron right.

Mon, 2009-01-19 15:04 — Tim Holmes

I was amused by your bizarre misreading of Lenin's
Tomb. In fact, he suggested that Obama's failure to
"speak out" was rather a refreshing change to his
consistent pattern of rampantly pro-Israeli remarks
during his election campaign. In fact what he seemed
to suggest was that Obama's silence was, if anything,
a promising sign - since he was hesitant to alienate a
large proportion of his base by acting as a "full-
throated cheerleader for this slaughter". Actually quite
difficult to misinterpret that one ...

http://leninology.blogspot.com/2009/01/why-oh-why-
obama-wont-speak-out.html

Sat, 2009-01-10 11:43 — Paul Evans2

Gez, I think you're reading, or rather presuming, positions held by the site that aren't there, as with the "pro-McCain" comment. I don't recall reading anything about Frank Field or welfare reform there, and they've run a lot of supportive posts about the Iraqi unions. The fact that certain elements of the libertarian right now ape the rhetoric of the left on gay rights doesn't diminish the fact that it's antithetical to the 'social conservatism' you accuse them of. On immigration, I recall them running numerous posts in defence of asylum seekers - and I'm happy that "pro-Israel left" is an accurate description of the site.

Sat, 2009-01-10 19:54 — gez pearce

Paul
I accept some of your points but it is still a neo conservative site.
You are correct that is not socially conservative but many young Tories are not social conservatives but libertarians.
As for the sites outlook towards economics. It believes strongly in the free market and only defends unions that have rightist free market outlook or are backed by the US. Cameron / Thatcherite conservatives are very pro this type of organized labour. Remember the UDM.
The reason you say they are not anti welfare reforms is the fact that the site is so obsessed with anti left rhetoric, Iraq , Muslims and Israel it rarely talks about economics and social issues. So it is difficult to tell their true beliefs.
If it is leftist site it is on the Prospect / Frank Field side of the Labour party, whether that is leftist, that is debatable.
What I will say is that site has close links to people like Nick Cohen, FrontPage, Policy exchange and other conservative movements and commentators and they seem to mirror the views of those organizations and commentators

Mon, 2009-03-16 14:00 — gazmac

According to respected international lawyer Franklin Lamb a recent CIA report gives the Israeli state 20 years before it collapses. Apparently members of the US Senate Intelligence Committee have seen the report which argues that a two-state solution is no longer realistic and that a one-state solution is the only viable democratic option. It predicts:

"an inexorable movement away from a two-state to a one-state solution, as the most viable model based on democratic principles of full equality that sheds the looming specter of colonial Apartheid while allowing for the return of the 1947/1948 and 1967 refugees. The latter being the precondition for sustainable peace in the region."

According to Lamb the CIA refers to the rapid and unexpected downfall of Apartheid South Africa (unexpected by the CIA that is which was of course a supporter of the racist regime, with the US government refusing to support sanctions, along with Thatcher's Britain) and of the Soviet Union.

http://gazasolidarity.blogspot.com/2009/03/cia-predicts-collapse-of-isra...

Mon, 2009-01-12 07:31 — explodingbadger1

@winston

The most obvious reasons are the Israelis are using disproportionate force, targeting civilians,

Mon, 2009-01-12 07:34 — explodingbadger1

targeting the police , using white phosphorous, and so on and so on. Compare how many Israelis died by Hamas rockets and how many are dying in Gaza from the current bombardment and from the siege. The Palestinians are the victims not Israel.

Mon, 2009-01-12 07:40 — explodingbadger1

Even president of the UN General Assembly, Miguel d’Escoto Brockman of Nicaragua, blasted the Israeli action, and said, “I think it’s a monstrosity; there’s no other way to name it … Once again, the world is watching in dismay the dysfunctionality of the Security Council.”

http://dahrjamailiraq.com/the-monstrosity-of-war#more-1405