Dear Angela

President Ahmadinejad has written to Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany, thoughtfully offering her solidarity in the struggle to liberate Germany from the tyranny of the you-know-who's. Harry's Place has highlights and an appropriate link.

Making a wilderness and calling it victory

Alan Johnson of the BBC surveys the fate of the former Israeli settlements in Gaza. It's a sorry tale and of course, Alan Johnson of the BBC being Alan Johnson of the BBC, it's largely the Israelis' fault. If only they'd stop overreacting to those 'crudely-made' rockets that only 'rarely' kill anybody... They should realize that it's their responsibility to fix it so that the Palestinians can play with rockets to their hearts' content and have a viable economy.

Reading the article, it dawned on me that there was something missing. If land which was illegally occupied has been vacated, what would you expect to happen to it? Surely it should be restored to its rightful owners. But it seems that's not on the agenda at all. Why not? Could it possibly be that before the settlers came this land was so unproductive that nobody ever thought of staking a claim to it?

Can the BBC settle this point, on which I am genuinely in ignorance? The evidence on offer is circumstantial at best, and I strongly suspect that that is in itself a clue to the answer. Here's a settler speaking last August:-

'"When we got to Gush Katif in the 1970s, there was nothing; just sand dunes 15 metres high," he says.

'"It was desert all around, with a smattering of Bedouins who worked with us. We didn't occupy anything. We developed these farmlands. From the sand, we created a paradise."'

(the article from which this comes is an eye-opener on the PA's determination to cut its nose off to spite its face: some settlers were willing to sell their farms as going concerns, but the PA were refusing to pay even if someone else gave them the cash)

On the other hand, a PA employee who, also last August, wrote a diary for the BBC website (balance, you see), had this to say:-

'Now we are looking to what happens afterwards. Once military control has ended there will be a special court appointed by the Palestinian authorities.

'It will ask people who owned land near or inside the settlements to prove their ownership with papers, then they will get it back.'

So how's the special court coming along a year later? Our correspondent Alan Johnson is on the line from Gaza. Over to you, Alan...

Maybe there is a parallel universe in which the settlers were invited to stay on and help kickstart the Gazan economy. Having consented, they are buying goods and services from Palestinian businesses and paying taxes to the Palestinian authorities. Meanwhile the rockets have stopped in reciprocation for the Israeli withdrawal, and exports flow freely across Gaza's borders.

In our universe, of course, the settlers had to go - not because they were thieves, but because they were Jews in a place where all political factions agree that no Jews are wanted. Something to bear in mind next time you hear that Israel is a racist apartheid state.

Or to put it another way: what do you call someone who doesn't want any Arabs living next door? A racist. What do you call an Arab who doesn't want any Jews living next door? An anti-imperialist resistance fighter. They're a laugh a minute, the anti-Zionist left.

Christians: Israel didn't finish the job

An Australian newspaper report offers a corrective to the claim (often made, one suspects, by people who really want it to be true) that the Israelis have succeeded in turning everyone in Lebanon into Hezbollah supporters. (via Stephen Pollard)

Underlying causes

Back at Christian Aid, meanwhile, head of propaganda - sorry, 'advocacy officer' - William Bell congratulates himself that 'We have impressed upon government ministers the importance of dealing with the underlying causes of conflict and poverty in the region'. These comprising:-

1. the continued Israeli occupation of Palestinian Territories

2. corruption within the Palestinian Authority

3. the existential threat to Israel from terrorist organizations with racist ideologies.

Only kidding. I made up no. 3. It really has become very difficult to find anything in CA 'advocacy' to which Hamas could object. I can only hope Tony Blair's chat with Dr Mukarji was a little more enlightening - if not, the PM must have wondered why he bothered.

To reprise a point I've made before, when Mr Bell does his twisting of elected politicians' arms, he does so on behalf of an organization subsidized by the UK taxpayer to the tune of over £8 million a year (source).

The Mufti and the crossing of the line

Harry's Place has a clip from German TV showing the Mufti of Jerusalem being welcomed by Hitler and reviewing SS troops.

Here's one of the comments on the post, signed 'SueC':-

'Gene, is it not possible that Arab antipathy towards Jews in Palestine both before and during WW2 had something to do with the purchase of land by the Jewish National Fund from absentee Arab landowners and the disposession of Arab tenant farmers? You constantly seek to represent such anti-Jewish feeling as solely attributable to inherent Arab anti-semitism (please, would all posters spare me the relevant quotations from the Koran and Hadith, I know them already) but is it not at least possible that it was grounded in simple economics? Before the zionist movement got going, Arab and Jew in Palestine seemed to rub along reasonably aimicably; once it became clear, however, that an increasing number of Jews in Palestine meant Arabs were losing their land, then anti-Jewish sentiments grew.'

This takes the outlook of the 'anti-Zionist' left so far into the realm of self-parody that one might question whether SueC is for real. I fear, however, that she is both real and all too representative in her inability to draw the most fumdamental of moral distinctions: that between shit and genocide.

Shit is the thing that proverbially happens (translation for the pious: we are sinners living in a fallen world). It has unquestionably happened to the Palestinans, as it has happened to many peoples at many times throughout history. For instance, the Germans in 1918 and after.

Your landlord sells out to people who want to farm the land themselves? Bad luck! But maybe you can get one of the new jobs which are being created in the booming local economy (booming at least partly due to the influx of Jewish immigrants).

Whereas genocide is the thing that, above all other things, simply must not happen. She who makes shit an excuse for supporting genocide - whether those excused are German or Palestinian - crosses the line beyond which all moral judgments dissolve into emotionalism and relativism.

Multiculturalism and the alienation of young Muslims

'Finally, there are the grievances. Some of these are genuine enough, but the complaint often boils down to the position that it is always right to intervene where Muslims are victims (as in Bosnia or Kosovo), and always wrong when they may be the oppressors or terrorists (as with the Taliban or in Iraq), even when their victims are also mainly Muslims.

'Given the world view that has given rise to such grievances, there can never be sufficient appeasement, and new demands will continue to be made.'

- Michael Nazir-Ali, Bishop of Rochester, who as a convert from Islam knoweth whereof he speaketh, argues that multiculturalist policies have unwittingly encouraged Islamic radicalism in Britain. He concludes:-

'Values, however, are not free-standing; they are deeply rooted in a vision of society. Whether we like it or not, characteristic British values arise out of the Christian faith and its vision of personal and common good. These were clarified by the Enlightenment and became the bed-rock of our modern political arrangements. The Enlightenment, however, by consigning Christianity to the private sphere, also removed the basis and justification for these values in the public sphere.

'It is this basis and justification that needs to be recovered if our values are to be secure, and if they are to help inculcate the virtues of generosity, loyalty, moderation and love that lead to personal fulfilment and social wellbeing.'

It's worth reading it all.

Meet the Christian conspiracy theorists

In the churches as in the secular world, it's a busy time at the liberal-moonbat interface...

A book recently published in America accuses the Bush administration of engineering 9/11. Nothing very unusual about that - it's the Land of the Free, after all - but it is perhaps slightly surprising that the publisher is an agency of the Presbyterian Church (USA) . Only slightly surprising, because this is, after all, the church in which the Trinity may now be addressed as 'the Mother, the Child and the Womb'. Scratch a Goddess-worshipping tree-hugger and you'll find a jihadi-hugger as often as not - a phenomenon dissected by Sarah Baxter in a deservedly much-linked-to piece in last weekend's Sunday Times.

Somehow there are never any hugs to spare for the Israelis, though...

'Israel's assault on Lebanon was planned even before Hizbullah attacked and was aimed at driving a wedge between the different faiths that have been living in harmony in the country, a delegation from the World Council of Churches said on their return from a visit to Beirut and Jerusalem.' (from via)

Planned as in 'Britain and France had been planning for years to wage war against Germany, and they just needed the invasion of Poland to give them a pretext'.

More on Israel's diabolical war aims from Jean-Arnold de Clermont, president of the Conference of European Churches:

'De Clermont, who spoke for the two other delegation members who joined him at a news conference in the world council's headquarters, said Israel would not want the existence of a democratic Lebanon where Jews, Christians and Muslims were peacefully living side by side, because it does not want to see its neighbor state succeeding in what Israel is unsuccessfully trying to achieve.

'De Clermont said Hizbullah was a scapegoat.'

So now we know who the innocent victims are too. Jews, Christians and Muslims living side by side: hmmm, isn't it just a little late for that? Did M de Clermont meet a lot of Jews while he was in Beirut?

Al-Grauniad reader reality check

Tony Blair may have criminally made Britain a target for terrorism by refusing to bring the troops home and hand Iraq over to the insurgents, but I'm all right, Jack. I'm sitting pretty here in Germany. Right?

Angry and alive

'A surprising number of British people - especially the super-creepy British Jews who recently signed a treacherous letter to the press distancing themselves from Israel's actions - seem to think Israel should exist not as a real, imperfect country full of real, imperfect people led by real, imperfect leaders, but as some sort of collective kosher Mater Dolorosa, there to provide a selfless, suffering example to the rest of us.

[...]

'Personally, I'd far prefer the Jews to be angry, aggressive and alive than meek, mild and dead - and that's what makes me and a minority like me feel so much like strangers in our own country, now more than ever. I've always loved being a hack, but now even that feels weird, as though I'm living among a bunch of snatched-body zombies who look like journalists but believe and say the most inhuman, evil things.'

- Julie Burchill writing for Haaretz - read it all (via)

Auntie explains

'Since the start of the current violence in Lebanon, the United States' position has remained consistent: it is only sensible to have an Israeli ceasefire when it can be a sustainable one.

'In other words, when Hezbollah has been sufficiently weakened to no longer pose a threat.

'That is a view that has been at odds with many European nations, who have argued for an immediate Israeli ceasefire.

'The reasons for that difference in emphasis are complex but many people point to the power of the Israel lobby in the United States as a key factor.'

- a perfect encapsulation of the BBC mindset (no, I won't use the 'b' word) from a piece by the Nick Miles on Friday.

For a start, it's mildly amusing that this appeared a matter of hours before John Bolton joined the rest of the Security Council in voting for, er, a ceasefire resolution - in a situation where Hezbollah had not exactly ceased to pose a threat.

The last sentence sets the tone for the rest of the article. Note Mr Miles' evasive 'many people point ...', not explicitly associating himself with the many people but not actually distancing himself from them either. It is a fact that a significant subset of the many people go further and point to this as evidence for the authenticity of the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, but naturally it is not the impartial Beeb's job to pass judgment on such views.

What I find most revealing is that, having established the difference between American and European attitudes, Mr Miles makes the reflex assumption that what stands in need of an explanation is America's bizarre, irrational and inhuman support for Israel. And the rest of the article then provides that explanation, focussing, surprise, surprise, on (Jewish) ethnic egotism and (evangelical) religious fanaticism.

Some people - perhaps even many people - might be wondering why, when a pro-Western democracy fights back against aggression from a fundamentalist and racist terrorist organization committed to wiping it off the map, so many Europeans react with outrage rather than solidarity. But no explanation is on offer from Mr Miles. Evidently such people are not his, or the Beeb's, kind of many people.