KGB tactics, UK style

+Sir Mealy Mouth (guess who?) was in Berlin last week, sorting out the world’s problems (or perhaps more accurately lip reading Joe Biden to see what he was allowed to say). He had ‘tough’ words for Israel. Suggesting it might be a good idea to hold off a bit in order to let in some humanitarian aid to Gaza, finishing with the usual flourish of working towards the ‘two state solution.’ This man has no shame—he can’t have if he’s glanced at a map of the West Bank in the last few years. He is obviously oblivious to the fact, well established by now, that Israel hasn’t the slightest intention of supporting the so-called two-state solution. Does Starmer think we’re all idiots? (Ed: Yes) Meanwhile all credit to Netanyahu for understanding the lack of conviction in his western ‘critics’ half-baked condemnations. Netanyahu may be blundering into a bigger mess than he can chew, but at least he carries with him a coterie of willing accomplices.
 
+Congratulations to Prof. David Miller, formerly of Bristol University, who has won an Employment Tribunal case regarding his dismissal. The Tribunal found that his Anti-Zionist beliefs were genuine and could not be equated with anti-Semitism. This is a significant precedent for everyone who can see the difference between a political project (an ethnocentric nation state) and religious belief. I hope this case has ramifications for the current state sponsored clampdown on pro-Palestinian protest. The recent targeting of journalists who are working to expose Israeli crimes in Gaza and West Bank, and now Lebanon reveals the overreach of the establishment’s prejudices and the abuse of legislation in pursuit of an ignoble cause rather than justice. Which is probably my way of saying I should never have voted for the 2006 Terrorism Act, which arose in the aftermath of the 7/7 London bombings. The way the police seem to be using this act, part of which deals with the incitement or encouragement of terrorism is to enable fishing exercises against anyone who supports a cause. In the case of Asa Winstanley of the Electronic Intifada his electronic devices were seized in an early morning raid but he was not arrested. You might think, if the police thought they had something concrete to go on they would have arrested him. The trouble with the legislation they are relying on is that it allows for a fair degree of interpretation. Is it incitement if you say ‘I understand why Palestinians feel compelled to use force against a brutal occupier?’ What’s the alternative—just to lie down and see your home destroyed and livelihood destroyed? Even if you believe force should be met by force, that doesn’t necessarily mean you support terrorism, which is what the 2006 Act purports to be about. It could mean for example that Palestine should have a state sanctioned standing army. Just like us. Of course, the Israeli government wouldn’t countenance that, which is probably why they end up with, e.g. Hamas instead.