Bono, philanthropy and taxes

Bono berates us all for the poverty of Africa.

Yet he doesn't pay his taxes, quoting the Gospel of Saint Matthew:- “Let not the left hand know what the right hand does.”

Someone should tell Bono the full quote:-

"But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth".

This teaching does not provide cover to those wishing to avoid their tax liability. It instructs them to keep quiet about what they give to the poor. It specifically tells the like of Bono to shut their big mouths.

Bono would do better to give to Caesar (the state) what is his, all that filthy lucre.

And when it comes to morality, a humble and broken heart is what God requires.

Merkel in Germany

Angela Merkel and her Christian Democrats have had a good election. 42% of the vote.

Some right wing Eurosceptics got close to representation with over 4% (In Germany, you need a minimum of 5% to get ant representatives into parliament).

But her coalition partners (the Free Democrats) slipped below 5%.

So, Merkel has no one on the right to form a coalition with.

Other people in parliament include the SPD (socialist/social democratic) Green and Lefists.

Between them they have 43% plus.

This is a great result for Merkel, but I do not believe it is quite the kind of result the British media says it is.

Firstly, the leftists and the rightists are pretty much neck and neck. The SPD has not done well, neither have the greens, that makes the German electorate look pretty much left wing, all other things considered.

Secondly, Merkel's victory is more a conquest of the German right than it is of the German electorate. 42% is a great result for the CDU/CSU alliance. But that is the sum of all the parliamentary parties of the right. This is a personal victory for Merkel, not a victory for the right.

Thirdly the British see this election result as a shift to Euro-scepticism, a rejection of the elitist euro agenda. But the Eurosceptic right wingers (AfD) scored as poorly as the Free Democrats.

You could more easily style this result as a rejection of free market neo liberalism as a rejection of Europe. After all, it is a victory for Ms Merkel, who has committee to saving the Euro.

The left is split, with many voters going to the left of the centrist SPD. The greens ran on higher taxes. The SPD leadership was lacklustre. Almost no one goes to the right of Merkel.

Someone from the German left will need to work with the CDU.

If the German left can find itself a leader, it is well positioned for the next election.

Overpopulation of Malthusians

There is a conventional wisdom that we are heading to disaster because here are just too man of us.

That we really are undergoing a population explosion.

And if we don't take some sort of drastic action, there will pretty soon not be enough food to go around.

One of the earlier guys to record such an opinion was Rev Thomas Malthus, way back around 1800.

But the evidence does not support such a view.

Not only is there more than enough food in the world to feed everybody, but the nations where people starve are more often than not food exporters. People starve because food is not shared. And because rich countries demand debt payments take precedence over full stomachs.

Furthermore, the rate of population growth has been slowing for around 50 years. Population is falling in China and in Europe. Population is stable in North America. The years of rapid growth are over in Southern Africa and South America.

Only in some parts of the Islamic world does population continue to rapidly expand.

The UN estimates population will cease to grow, and begin to decline, around the year 2100.

More recent estimates are for peak population in the year 2050.

Just think, over half the people alive today will likely live to witness peak population. The issues facing the world are not those of ever expanding population, but of an aging population.

Fascism in Europe

Germany has been pretty cautious throughout the Euro crisis, and there are good reasons for this German caution.

Firstly Germany is a democracy, and the voters are feeling pretty cautious. As would the voters of any other country that was being asked to bail out its neighbours.

Secondly there is an election coming. In four days' time.

But also there are other reasons, specific to German history. Because of the second world war, there is still something of a guilt complex in the national psyche. And because of the terrible suffering of the 1930s depression, there is a terrible fear of inflation.

These two things are linked. It is true that Germany was probably affected worse than any other western nation by the great depression, but that is not the only reason the Germans fear inflation. The chaos of the great depression, allied with a ruling elite discredited and largely dispossessed by the disaster of losing world war one, is what left the door ajar for the Nazis in the first place.

So it is not some Nazi like sense of superiority that makes Germany so reluctant to bet the farm on rescuing southern Europe so much as the fearful folk memory of the disaster that unfolded last time the country lost control of its economy.

This is very difficult to understand from a British perspective. I am over 40, I cannot remember a time when I thought we did have control of our economy. Nor point to any such time in the last century.

But today we look south towards Greece, where they have had a real fascist style political assassination. The authorities dress it up as an argument over a football match, but really Golden Dawn have sent a mob down there to cover a premeditated attack.

Now figures on the left speak of 'banning' Golden Dawn. What idiocy. People are turning to Golden Dawn from a sense of hopelessness and alienation. How will 'banning' them help? Will it make the political system more inclusive? Will it spread hope?

There is a potential tragedy unfolding before our eyes. That is in its fear of the fascism of the past, Germany enforces an austerity on Southern Europe which, rather than saving us from the 1930s, creates a new fascism of the 21st century.

Perhaps Ms Merkel can alter course after the election. Perhaps the German electorate will swing further to the left than anyone expects. The tragedy is not yet complete. But we need a change in direction to avoid it. I cannot see that change can come from Greece, or from anywhere other than Germany.

Democracy in the UK

It may seem strange to anyone who is a long term resident here, but we have had an outbreak of democracy.

The executive decided that we should go to war.

They consulted parliament.

Parliament said no.

War is cancelled.

In terms of geopolitics, this is probably something of a non event. It will not have much impact on any US decision to attack Syria or not. And the UK contribution is small enough to be negligible.

For years we British thought that our army was the best in the world. Then we were humiliated in Basra and Helmand. That has taught the sane amongst us that we are not so special.

We have to adjust to the newly perceived reality. Even if our leaders can't perceive it.

It seems our parliament can.

For the first time since Vietnam, the UK will not join the US in a military adventure.

For the first time since Suez the parliamentary opposition has opposed the government on military action.

For the first time since 1782 the government has los such a vote. To put that in context, the Americans had yet to win their revolutionary war back then.

This may not be a great geopolitical event, but in UK terms it is seismic. We are no longer first in the queue for military action or for backing the Americans.

We might even develop an independent foreign policy.

Stumble on Syria

The time has now come for Syria to be attacked.

The reason? Pride.

The vast number killed was not enough.

The sensitive strategic location was not enough.

No. It is because the US President, Mr Obama declared a red line, and that line was crossed. So the USA must attack Syria to maintain 'credibility'.

No matter that the Syrian civil war has morphed from a struggle against the regime for basic rights into a fight for survival against Islamic fundamentalists. No matter that America plans to provide air cover for the allies of al Qaeda. No matter that the Kurds and the Christians of Syria, pushed to choose sides, reluctantly opt for al Assad as the lesser of two evils, no matter that even Israel no longer deploys its rhetoric against the Assad regime.

Do the people of America not wonder that in Egypt a democratically elected government is deposed by the military, their government does nothing. Islamic fundamentalists seek to take over Syria, and America's leaders, so blinded by their hatred of Iran, fight alongside.

American pride is wounded. Syria must be attacked.

What hubris is this? Was  nothing learnt in Afghanistan and Iraq?

Can a nation march to war in such pride and arrogance then leave victorious?

Alternatively, could the Syrian straw, added to the myriad other burdens be the one that breaks the American back?

We are about to find out.

Pity the poor of Syria. Their homes are a battlefield.

Marie Antoinette, the feminist

Marie Antoinette, Queen of France, remains famous.

She asked if the poor could not buy bread, why not 'let them eat cake?'

It is hard to tell if she was being callously sarcastic, she was so far removed from reality she really did not understand them to be too poor to eat or if she was some sort of progressive who would have liked to throw open the royal kitchens.

She was given a bad press by the revolutionary leaders because she was Austrian. Foreign. And while (at the beginning of the revolution) it could be seen as disloyal to attack the king, attacking him through the malign influence of his scheming wife was far more acceptable.

She was the soft underbelly of the monarchy.

Powerless, yet condemned because of her husband's governments' failings.

A feminist icon if ever there was one!

It is often forgotten today, but the real reason Marie Antoinette was reviled by the people was her 'farm'. She actually had a miniature farm made so she could learn something of the life of the poor.

But the poor saw it differently. What was back breaking work for them was some sort of 'play' for her.

Again Marie Antoinette presaged the modern feminist. Most women, particularly mothers, who go out to work do so to provide for their families. Just like most men. They are far more likely to be cleaners or nurses than they are lawyers or doctors.

Yet when I hear feminists talk, it is not about work. It is about 'career'. About the self worth and fulfilment of 'doing something productive'. Of proving their worth, showing they can make it in a place of work. This is not the sort of talk I hear from cleaners.

It is not about doing it for the money.

Guess what, 'work' IS about doing it for the money. When 'career' becomes more important than the earnings, it is no longer work, it is play.

The modern career minded feminist truly is a present day Marie Antoinette. Has she any idea how her talk sounds to a mother who can't afford to stop work and spend time with her children? Mothers who are condemned to endless hours of drudgery while the state takes their children and offers substandard child care, and misguided early attempts at education.

Indeed, they are cut from the same cloth.

I have far more in common with a poor working mother than any career following feminist ever will.

Trolling the feminists

A woman (Ms Criado Perez) has run a campaign for women to be featured on Bank of England bank notes.

She was, subsequently, subjected to all manner of abuse and threats. Including threats of rape.

This has become something of a news story here in the UK.

The original issue, whether a place on the back of a bank note should be reserved for a woman, leaves me in the same baffled state that the gay marriage debate did. I really don't see the deal. Jane Austen is a worthy enough figure, but as other writers who have been on bank notes go (Charles Dickens and William Shakespeare) she really looks like the poor relation. The reason women don't often appear on bank notes is that people on bank notes are significant historical figures. Women just did not have the same opportunity to do great things as men did in centuries gone by. It should serve as a salutary lesson in the injustice of the past that we do not have too many great women candidates.

Putting some women on anyhow kind of sweeps that under the carpet in my view.

But really, I find it difficult to give a damn either way. If it really is that important to some people, let them have it. I would like to take the woman off the front, but don't too much care who is on the back of a bank note.

Of all the injustice in the world, is this issue really worth the fight for Ms Criado Perez?

Then there is the secondary issue, which has far outgrown the original debate. It is a significant level of really unpleasant abuse hurled at Ms Criado Perez. Seemingly, these people along with their target, really do care about who is on the bank notes.

Or maybe not.

Ms Criado Perez and feminists in general seem to think this is all about 'shutting them up'. That that is the motivation of people who target them.

There are young males who spend too much time on line abusing other people. I can't know for sure, but it really does seem true that there is at least an informal group of young males who particularly like to abuse women on line. They probably think it is funny, or banter. They probably do it on line because the anonymity means they can generally get away with it.

But is it really about 'shutting women up'? So far as I can tell feminist thought (insofar as it is a single unified idea) on the issue is that society in general disapproves of women having a voice, and that much every day sexism is aimed at 'shutting them up' so that only men are heard.

I do not think that feminists are particularly well qualified to diagnose the motives of the abusers. I expect the abusers would be disappointed if they all shut up. I think they would miss the 'banter'.  They may even be silly enough to assume their targets also enjoy the exchange. That 'they love it really'.

I think feminists conflate the actions of these abusers with the every day desire men often express, and much more often feel, for women to shut up.

Most men I know would see things differently. They might like the women in their lives to shut up not so much so only they are heard, but so that they might have some time hearing nothing at all. That is something that women seem totally unable to grasp.

Austerity is dead, long live Austerity

Across the world, the economic policy of austerity is dead.

The IMF has pronounced job creation more important than debt reduction.

Abenomics has fundamentally changed the course of Japanese policy

The UK has started throwing money at the housing market.

China is heading towards stimulation of consumption, even Germany has endorsed the IMF view.

In the US, Austerity was preached, but never really practised.

So the economic policy of austerity has been abandoned as a failure. But no one really admits that. In fact, politicians keep on talking austerity.

They do so to avoid looking like they are navigating a U turn.

But also, leaders of the political right are keen to kill off a lot of schemes which they have an ideological objection to.

In an age of austerity, we just can't afford x, y and z.

So austerity, always a failure economically, dead as an intellectual idea, lives on; zombie like, as a political stick with which to beat the poor.

After all, in Britain, we can afford nuclear weapons, but not universal child benefit.

So much for tough decisions.

Marx in 21st Century Wall Street, and the Pentagon

I am hardly unique in thinking that Marxist analysis of capitalism provided us with some very worthwhile insights.

That it was the watering down of the more extreme results of capitalism by Roosevelt and the Western European Social Democrats which led to the great prosperity of the late 20th century.

And that the untrammelled capitalism of the 19th century and 1920s resulted in disaster not just for the poorest, but for society as a whole.

And the idiot anti Keynsian Neo Conservatives who sought to elevate the market to some sort of religion are ultimately responsible for the mess we find ourselves in today.

So, Marx I thought, was absolutely right about what was wrong with Capitalism, but his vision of the future was just plain wrong.

To recap Marxist theory of history predicted that capitalism would implode when the politically conscious proletariat rose up to take control of the state. The state would be the mechanism for the common ownership of the means of production (everything) until perfect communism took hold, when the state would wither away.

Unfortunately we never got to the 'withering away of the state' part. Never mind.

My point here is, that I never thought we would reach a stage of the all encompassing state. Where society is run by a bureaucratic apparatchik class rather than by a capitalist class.

But look at where we have arrived. The public sector has taken over large chunks of our productive capacity. Generally close to 40% in Western Democracies.

For generations food production has been directed and subsidised by central governments, along with generous tax credits for industrial investment.

Now the whole financial system looks like a state dependency. In the US the private mortgage market was underwritten by the federal government, and the UK looks to follow suit.

Post 2001 the state has advanced not just in the economic, but also the security sphere. To the point where hardly a human interaction can be held in guaranteed privacy from intrusion of the state.

Even where government does not intervene, production is organised not in the small entrepreneurial units described in Adam Smith's theory, rather in large bureaucratic institutions. Called corporations. The owners of these corporations are ordinary people. Ownership via pension schemes and investment funds. But it is the.managers of these corporations who control them.  These managers come from the same class as the politicians. They form a bureaucratic elite. A revolving door takes these people from one side of the public/private divide and back again. The rest of us are generally excluded.

Indeed we are, as Marx envisaged now ruled by bureaucratic apparatchiks rather than by the owners of capital.

It just doesn't smell like socialism to me.

The only challenge to this bureaucratic elite comes from the tiny numbers of super wealthy. But that is another story.

So was Trayvon Martin guilty?

Mr Zimmerman has been acquitted of the second degree murder of teenager Trayvon Martin.

The undisputed facts of the case appear to be thus

Mr Martin was on his way back from a shop
Mr Zimmerman saw Mr Martin
Mr Zimmerman chased Mr Martin
Mr Zimmerman killed Mr Martin

Mr Zimmerman claims he felt threatened by Mr Martin. That Mr Martin attacked him.

With Mr Martin lying dead, there is no witness to counter this story.

It seems that US law does not allow Mr Martin to use his fists to defend against an arms bearing, pursuing Mr Zimmerman, but does allow Mr Zimmerman to shoot and kill an otherwise innocent individual with whom a confrontation began only after Mr Zimmerman chased him.

Mr Zimmerman confirms he chased Mr Martin.

This does not seem like justice to me.

If Mr Zimmerman can reasonably shoot and kill Mr Martin because he felt threatened, could not any black teenager reasonably feel threatened in the presence of Mr Zimmerman?

Will the law protect their 'right' to shoot and kill in preemptive self defence?

Mr Morsi, working class hero

Mr Morsi won an election. He was Egypt's first truly legitimate ruler.

He held power for about a year, then the army deposed him. In favour (so they claim) of another election.

The point is the people of Egypt got it wrong last time, they voted for the wrong guy. This time they might vote for someone more acceptable to the army.

So, some six decades and more after the army seized power under General Nasser, it stood aside for just one year to give the Muslim brotherhood a chance.

What is it I wonder, that makes us all so blasé about the democratic choice of the people of Egypt. I know that Mr Morsi made some choices which many find unpleasant. I myself did not like his policies. I would have found it difficult to vote for him. But it is a fundamental rule of democracy that you have to accept it when you lose, those who now rise up against Mr Morsi because they find his policies 'undemocratic' seem to have lost all sense of what democracy means.

One thing it means is you have to accept policies you don't like at least until the next election.

It seems the middle class liberals have forgotten another important point about democracy. It is rule by the masses.

They really shouldn't be surprised that a democratic president makes use of a bit of populism. That is the nature of democracy.

They should be mature enough to accept that an elected president may well say one thing before the election and do another afterward. Which democracy has not experienced that?

It seems that Egypt's middle class demands freedom for themselves. To throw off the shackles of military rule. But they are not ready to trust the choice of working class Egyptians for president.

That I fear is the real reason Mr Morsi could be removed. The Muslim Brotherhood should understand, its struggle is not really religious, it is a typical class struggle.

There is only one legitimate reason for deposing an elected president by unlawful means. That is when that president seeks to avoid re-submitting themselves to the electorate in the required timetable. For all his faults, Mr Morsi had not tried to extend his term or postpones or cancel elections. The ballot box remained the only legitimate way to remove him.

I would caution them. Until the supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood took to the streets Mubarak looked secure. Mr Morsi won a fair election. They and the army may sit in terribly polite company disapproving of the way uneducated people vote, but that is the nature of democracy.

The people of Egypt have tasted revolution. Sooner or later the mass of people will secure power for themselves.

Will they then be more merciful than the army was when it shot 50 supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood dead? How can the Coptic pope be so short-sighted as to support a military takeover? His own people will answer for that should the Muslim Brotherhood be in power again.

After the revolution comes the terror. The shooting dead of 50 people will be as nothing when that terror comes.

Pity Egypt. For after the revolution comes the terror.

It is something akin to a universal truth that after the revolution comes the terror.

Revolutions whenever or wherever they are seem to follow a similar path.

Oppression from an incumbent elite becomes sufficiently extreme to deprive civil society of fundamental rights. It is a necessary but insufficient condition that thinking people scarcely dare speak their mind.

Once this situation takes hold it must be combined with economic hardship for the masses, such that feeding and clothing the children is a struggle. The tinder is ready. All that is needed is the spark.

That can be the self immolation of a street vendor, as in Tunisia, or revolution in a neighbour as in Egypt's case.

Once the ball is rolling, the path is clear. Downhill. Revolutions are begun by brave, honourable people willing to die for high ideals like freedom of expression and association. These are the thinking people that scarcely dared to speak their mind.

A revolution is made successful if joined by the ordinary people scarcely able to feed their children.

After a certain amount of struggle, the old regime is toppled, a new regime installed. This requires compromise between those that sought freedom for their minds and those that sought food for their children. That compromise is difficult. People from both groups have given their lives for the revolution, these groups both think that 'their' people are now in power. The new incumbents promise the earth to their own constituencies, they can never deliver. Inevitably, those that fought bravely feel betrayed by the new regime.

For one thing, people taking up the reins of office believe they will have far more power than they do. The old incumbent dictator will have fostered a myth of omnipotent invincibility. It is a myth the people to a certain extent bought in to. Even in a democracy we believe the sate has far more power than it really does.

For another, revolutions are begun by idealists. they put people into power who are not best suited to the grubby deal making, realpolitik and expedience of governance.

Often called a provisional government, the first government after a revolution falls. The coalition of free thinkers and child feeders fractures.

After a further struggle new, narrower group takes power. This group will be highly ideological, though not what most thinking people call idealists. They are prepared to sacrifice basic humanity for the power of their own group. They will tolerate no opposition. Free though will be a thing of the corrupt past.

This group may be less human, but it is more competent in the wielding of power.

It will realise that the free thinkers need the child feeders for a revolution, so it will appease the child feeders as it oppresses the free thinkers. This oppression is much more severe than anything the old regime ever thought of.

Racial and religious minorities are caught up in it. With much law from the previous regime swept away, the petty prejudices of any small time policeman promoted to sergeant are the difference between life and death. He has enormous power over anyone and everyone he comes into contact with.

Another revolution will, eventually result. Only when a country becomes so unstable that those taking power after a revolution are already fearful for the consequences of he next (in particular the consequences for themselves and their families) will democracy have a chance.

For power corrupts. Our leaders are never restricted by their respect for us. Only ever their fear. Fear of the people, fear of the law, fear of the next regime. Fear of losing power. That is all that limits the excesses of our leaders.

Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood took power thinking it was their inalienable right, and have behaved accordingly. Another revolution must come, if not now the certainly before true democracy can take hold.

After the revolution comes the terror. Pity Egypt's liberals. Pray for Egypt's Copts. There may be few of either left before Egypt tastes democracy.

In Memory of Nelson Mandela. Terrorist and freedom fighter.

In another age the word terrorist was not synonymous with Muslim extremism. It was ore likely to be applied to figures of the left.

In today's world, where the name Mandela is almost universally revered, it is difficult, painful even, to remember that not only the South African apartheid government, but also the UK and US governments viewed Nelson Mandela as a terrorist.

Mandela has been a figure of inspiration. But an examination of his quotes gives us an understanding as to just how radical the youthful Mandela appeared in the eyes of the establishment. Mandela justified an armed struggle as "a purely defensive action against the violence of apartheid". He also said that "

A freedom fighter learns the hard way that it is the oppressor who

defines the nature of the struggle, and the oppressed is often left no

resource but to use the methods that mirror those of the oppressor.

At a certain point, one can only fight fire with fire It is worth remembering that the ANC armed struggle was one of sabotage, rather than killing people. In today's world that such people, demanding nothing more than the vote, could be called terrorists seems more extreme than Mandela ever was. But his interest in and association with Communism during the cold war made Mandela dangerous to the West.

As ever one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter.

For his part in the campaign of sabotage Mandela was sentenced to life in prison. He served 27 years. Subsequent quotes give us an insight into a transition of sorts. For example
"If you want to make peace with your enemy, you have to work with your enemy. Then he becomes your partner." But such sentiments presuppose a enemy willing to make an equivalent transition to partnership. This was, eventually, true for South Africa. And also for Northern Ireland. In the case of South Africa the manifest justice of the cause, allied with the magnanimity of the ANC allowed reconciliation to happen. It is, of course, easier to be generous when time is on your side. The inbuilt majority and the isolation of the regime made it clear the struggle would end in victory.

If we look to the rehabilitation of the ANC and Mandela for some hope for today's intractable conflicts, I feel somewhat disheartened.

Where is the leadership in Israel which will allow some settlement with the Palestinians? They have had their leaders, Barak could not bring the people with him. Rabin and Sharon could not live long enough to see it through. As for the Palestinians, since the loss of Arafat, there is no single leader recognised widely enough. Although Hamas as an organisation seems to have the potential.

As for America's wider war on terror, Obama could not even close Guantanamo. Bin Laden was a single leader, but the nature of al Qaeda is one of weak central command.

Without a settlement in Israel/Palestine a steady stream of recruits seems inevitable. How could any American president sit down to talk with Islamic insurgents? America's dominance of the battlefield being so absolute and the likelihood of some splinter group carrying on the struggle meaning the risk to Americans remains basically unchanged implies America has next to nothing to gain.

It is a truism of Great Power diplomacy that no military action should be undertaken without a clear view on how it might be brought to an end. George W Bush has been roundly criticised for many things. Most of it justified. The fact he began his 'War on Terror' and I still can see no way for America to end it is something for which he has not faced nearly enough condemnation.

Assad bailed by Friends

Not so long ago everyone who knew anything was numbering Bashar al Assad's days in power.

This was not simply a case of the West misunderstanding the Arabs (although Western analysts got it wrong). Nor was it a just case of the West seeing it all through Israeli eyes (although the Israelis got it wrong).

Because the Arabs and the Turks got it wrong too.

After the wave of the Arab Spring swamped dictator after dictator, we had all become used to regime's falling rather than standing. When Syria's turn came, why should that regime prove any different? Was Assad really so much stronger than Mubarak?

Apparently so. But why? Why has the unstoppable wave of the Arab Spring come to a halt in Syria?

I suppose we should begin with a note of caution. Assad is not yet ultimately victorious. Just this morning the US has decided to start (overtly) arming the rebels, that may have an effect. Assad has, however, already proven himself more resilient than Mubarak and Gaddafi.

Had the Shia of Bahrain received the sort of assistance sent by Qatar and Saudi Arabia to Syria's rebels, the monarchy there would probably have fallen.

So, after having watched it all, here is my advice for dictators to follow to keep themselves safe.

Firstly, you need powerful friends. Gaddafi had no real friends outside of southern Africa. While these people could send him militia, they couldn't veto action at the UN, or send him arms.

Secondly, democratic friends are only so much use. There was no way America would arm Mubarak in the same way that Russia arms Assad once the shooting began.

Thirdly you need friends in the neighbourhood. The role of Hezbollah in the battle for Qusayr may have been exaggerated. The Syrian army provided the artillery, air power and many troops, but Hezbollah guerrillas may have tipped the balance. Syria also has a highly significant border with Shia run Iraq, providing a bridge to a friendly Iran.

Fourthly it helps to be part of an ethnic minority. I don't mean a tiny minority of two or three percent, but 15% to 20% helps. It provides you with a ready core of people willing to fight. This is true for Assad, and also the al Khalifa monarchy in Bahrain, as it was for Saddam in Iraq.

Fifthly, foreign support for those rising up against you is a double edged sword. If you can retain the edge (having tanks and an air force really helps here) foreign support can discredit your opponents and galvanise your own people. Spending too much time worrying about outsiders won't help. Concentrate on your own friends abroad. Tell the Russians that you are a great advert for their weaponry. Does American support for the rebels really help them recruit? Does al Qaeda support for the rebels unite America behind them?

Sixth, while trying to stop foreigners supporting your opponents might not help, stirring up trouble in their backyards almost certainly will. Erdogan took a big risk in getting involved in Syria. It looks like it might be all downhill for him from thereon in. Note that trouble in Yemen has flared up again. I expect Bahrain to witness further stirrings over the summer. If Turkey and the Arabian peninsular are in turmoil, the rebel backers there will have bigger fish to fry. America will be much more cautious about intervening in the middle east.

Seventh, don't panic. Bashar may not have looked like a hardman dictator to start with. There was talk that it was his father's cronies rather than him that ran the show. But he has held on. Long enough to get sufficient Iranian and Hezbollah to decisively shift the momentum at Qusayr. It really isn't over yet, but if his forces can push on to Aleppo, it will be all but done. He has shown enough caution in the early stages, and now looks ruthless enough to finish the job. Had he shown that level of ruthlessness in the beginning, he would have killed unarmed demonstrators. Now he is fighting a civil war.

Eighth, be useful. This may look easier said than done, but how useful was Mubarak, really? Israel is the indispensable US ally. Whereas Syria really is indispensable to both Russia and Iran. You may get more for being indispensable to Russia than 'nice to have' to America.

Bashar al Assad may not have looked strong in the beginning, but whereas Mubarak had only the backing of democracies, Assad had Russia, Hezbollah and Iran, prepared to publicly veto resolutions and break any amount of sanctions to help him survive. Totally unconcerned about the human rights of his opponents,

While Gaddafi had battle hardened Africa militia, the equivalent of Hezbollah at is disposal, he had no help from major powers. Ben Ali was no strategic use to anyone.

Looking down my list you may see that nearly all of it is about how you manage relationships with allies. Assad has done that perfectly. Showing enough determination to win without making it too difficult for his friends to support him (like the Kims of North Korea).

So the two real biggies are look after your alliances, and a relationship with Russia or China will probably help more in a really tight spot than any amount of closeness with a democracy.

The Arabs are reputed to say "better be America's enemy than friend, America betrays its friends and appeases its enemies". For Arab nations, that may be true.

I think Assad will survive. As soon as I saw Hassan Nasrallah publicly commit to the fight I was sure he would survive. Not because I think Hezbollah are invincible (highly effective though they are), but because I think they are smart. Unlike the trigger happy arm chair generals of pundit land, I do not think they would be backing a loser.

The US seems to agree, that is why they have announced they will now overtly arm the rebels.

Assad needs to get to Aleppo before those arms get to the battlefield, then he will have won.

The price of Mohammed Katta's coffee

A young coffee seller in Syria has been tortured and murdered.

The murderers made a pretence of (Sharia) legalism, accusing the boy of blasphemy. But which court was he tried before? What witnesses were called? Only his accusers.

Witness accounts are given here:- http://brown-moses.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/english-transcripts-of-witnesses.html

I wouldn't really recommend reading. It makes me angry and depressed. I doubt anyone can enjoy it.

Three Islamist fighters (at least two probably foreign) demanded free coffee (or coffee on credit) from a fourteen year old boy. He refused. His refusal mentioned the name Mohammed. They took him away, tortured him, brought him back and murdered him.

A crowd of three or four hundred men looked on, they did nothing.

Look at what this tells us about Syria.

What kind of men try to bully a 14 ear old boy to take away the coffee? Out numbering him three to one? Why did no grown man challenge them? How wounded was their fragile, infantile pride at the refusal of a fourteen year old boy to bow before their bullying?

We are told that the way to deal with bullies is to stand up to them.

Poor Mohammed did this. He paid with his life.

Western media portray him as some sort of liberal atheist. He was nothing of the sort. Just a normal fourteen year old boy, trying hard to earn a bit of extra money in tough times. Anxious to learn to be a man.

He knew more of being a man than the three sick murderers that took his life, or the three or four hundred that looked on.

The murder of this boy achieves a similar result for the opposition that the murder of Hamza al Khateeb did for the regime.

How is it that a crowd of men can look on while a young boy has his coffee stolen by three immature bullies? Let alone see a child murdered? Is the opposition so feared? So little respected, not a single man would even ask for justice? Surely these people will welcome the regime soldiers that are making their way to Aleppo as we speak. They may not love them, but they will not stand up to them.

May God judge these murderers by the same standard they judged young Mohammed by.

May the three or four hundred men of Aleppo who looked on burn with shame until they stand up to such bullies, whichever side they fight for.

Privacy through the PRISM of security

Is the US the NSA is collecting metadata. Should anyone be unclear, the difference between metadata and data is that metadata is generally data about data.

So many hours of recorded phone conversations would be 'raw data'.

Lists of which numbers were called, when and for how long would be metadata.

If you have both that is a complete data set.

Verizon have been caught giving up their data far too easily.

There are a whole bunch of major internet companies which have been cooperating with Federal requests to see data. Cooperating rather than challenging and certainly not resisting, requests fro data.

Obama has said that you have to sacrifice some level of privacy for security, and I think here is a trade off. But the fact this has been done in secret indicates at some level the authorities knew it was inappropriate. When did a politician ever hide vote winning policies?

Another defence, that it is all OK because it is only non Americans being spied on isn't that great. Firstly, if a conversation between an American and a foreigner is spied on, an American necessarily IS spied upon. Secondly I do not believe the assertion that only foreigners are targeted. Why would court orders that the Internet companies say they insisted on be needed if this were so? Thirdly, is the US federal government admitting it's actions are inappropriate for US citizens? So the rest of us should be worried, right?

Now the leaker has outed himself. Edward Snowden an ex CIA employee working at the NSA for contractors BoozAllen. He clearly planned this over some time. Taking piles of data over a period of time.

He had access to vast amounts of data because he was an IT specialist. And other people in the environment he worked in were clueless. I am a software developer. So far as I can see, the world splits into around three  groups. There are the IT specialists. there are those that fear IT, and there are those that worship IT.

It specialists are aware that IT is just a tool. Very few non IT people seem to think that way. Hopefully that will change for younger generations. Anyhow, this guy was managing to earn $200k with little by the way of formal qualifications. In IT, you don't need much to make that happen in a capital city. Security clearance was this guy's thing. Not easy to get. Anyone who had been an activist as a student would have been denied. Half the users of facebook would have left a data trail which would have precluded them.

So Mr Snowden has leaked his leak, and run away to Hong Kong. Citing the great respect for civil liberties that exists there. Apparently while maintaining a straight face. To be clear, Hong Kong is many things, but neither under British nor Chinese rule has I been a beacon of any sort of freedom, other than the economic variety.

So I am confused. I object to this intrusive monitoring of my private life, and my own government's spineless acquiescence along with its connivance. But Mr Snowden, in running to America's great rival, rather than Switzerland, or some neutral country, is looking something like a defector. It is either ill thought through or he has been working with the Chinese for some time. Strange that a guy would have been so meticulous in his leaking but not thought through his escape route. But there you have it.

More importantly it provides us a glimpse into the world of the future. We already have remote controlled robots fighting wars for us. Soon targets will be flagged up by data mining algorithm. Are we heading to a world where a big over arching networked machine will identify, track and eliminate targets without any human intervention?

Will it be possible to assassinate someone on the other side of the world just by updating a database?

Robots may not kill for emotional, vengeful reasons. Neither do they question orders. God help us if they did. They make Hitler's SS look moral.

Is there anyone of the whole earth who can withstand this sort of scrutiny? Surely we all have something to hide. We all have something to be ashamed of.

For those of us in IT, this is not really news. But hopefully the rest of you will now wake up to the surveillance society we have become. This is not democratising. Whoever controls the data will control which data is released. There will soon be enough data on everyone to destroy them.

Turkish Conspiracy Delight

I love a conspiracy theory.

I don't necessarily believe them, but I do nevertheless love them.

Perhaps it is a throwback to m youth, because it does have the word 'piracy' in there.

And while I think most of the bad things that happen are more down to 'cock up' than 'conspiracy' (that is more a case of the incompetence of those that are in charge than their malevolent evil) I am also of the opinion that the vast majority of those bad things do get stopped pretty quickly when there are adverse affects on people with power or influence. Whereas when the poor suffer, not too much happens without a long sustained campaign.

In a similar way, mistakes and incompetence which give money to the already rich and powerful continue unabated for years, for decades, for centuries or perhaps forever. When an error results in a poor person getting a bit extra, it rapidly ends in a court of law.

So while these things may not be the result of Machiavellian conspiracy, or piracy, the apathy which allows these things to happen is selective. There must always be individuals who know, and turn a blind eye. So it is with corruption.

But I digress. What I am really thinking about today is my favourite conspiracy theory. That the protests in Turkey are actually CIA sponsored, in the same way people allege the colour revolutions in Ukraine, Georgia and Iran were.

As I said, I don't necessarily believe in conspiracy theories just because I enjoy them. That does; mean you can't lean anything from them. On the contrary when a conspiracy theory gains currency, it tells you something about both those that peddle it, and those it mentions. So this idea tells us something about Erdogan, his supporters, the opposition protesters and the public image of America in Turkey.

In brief the conspiracy theory says that a Sufi leader by the name of Fethullah Gülen (Hocafendi  to his friends and followers) is actually in the pay of the CIA. Check out his history with google. Make your own mind up.

That these guys in the Gulen movement, while sill generally approving of the AKP have switched support from Erdogan to Abdullah Gul (current president) or Bulent Arinc (deputy prime minister) or Ahmet Davutoglu (foreign minister). And that is why Gul & Arinc are being much more conciliatory towards the protesters. This Gulen movement is also mean to have influence with a large number of police officers.

So the CIA have been stirring up the secular educated youth as they did in the colour revolutions. They have also been using influence in the security service to cause police to overreact, stoking the fire further. And they have been giving the nod to rivals in the APK to undermine Erdogan, so that a more Israel friendly leader can be installed.

As everyone knows, all conspiracy theories must involve Israel somewhere.

There may even be a little truth in some small aspect of this theory. But some of the things I think it tells us about the actors are as follows:-

1) The Gulen guys are mistrusted, in the same way a small religious denomination would be my educated secular youth in the West

2) Erdogan has got carried away by his power. I know that people saying something doesn't make it true, but conspiracy theories gain currency because they are believable. Whatever his role in this situation, people are starting to believe Erdogan sees himself as a modern day Sultan. He himself must take a large slice of blame for that.

3) Other significant figures in the APK are seen as more ambitious than they are loyal.

4) People dislike Israel (no biggie)

5) People see America as an interfering, imperialist behemoth. Like with Israel, this is not all bad. While it is better to be respected and loved than respected and feared, the latter will do.

The more that people subscribe to this view, the more vulnerable Erdogan becomes. Any democratic politician must lose power at some time, for his long term legacy, the sooner the better for Erdogan.

Abenomics part three

Japanese prime minister Shinzo Abe has unleashed the 'third arrow' of his package to revive the Japanese economy.

He has declared a target to increase incomes by 3%. To be compared to his inflation target of 2%. That is real income growth (of only about 1%, but growth nonetheless). It seems Mr Abe has realised, at last, the key to a vibrant economy is widespread prosperity. No amount of trickle down from a super rich elite will do. You need either an expanding middle class (like the BRICs) or expanding middle class incomes, like the post war west.

So actually what you really need is expanding aggregate income for ordinary people.

That is just what Mr Abe plans.

So far, all the asset buying, quantitative easing as they call it, a kind of modern day money printing, has seen a lot of newly minted money falling straight into the pockets of those rich enough to own assets. You may think that we all own these sorts of assets via pension funds, but that is less true by the year. And given the requirement for pension funds to own Sovereign debt, and the price manipulation we have seen in the market for sovereign debt, pension funds for ordinary people have been a particularly poor way of transmitting this historical largesse to people on he ground.

What has been striking during this crisis is the vast amounts of money thrown at supporting financial markets, i.e. the rich. And the preferred methods of paying for it? Target ordinary people. Via social security, medical benefits, publicly funded education. Whatever else you can think of.

Looks like Mr Abe is showing at least some intention of facing these vested interests down.

The squeals of the elite can be heard all the way from Tokyo. "'Abenomics' should not lean toward a planned economy and market players are attaching greater importance to deregulation, not these numerical targets."  said Hideo Kumano, chief economist at Dai-ichi Life Research Institute.

I have news for the economists of  Dai-ichi Life Research Institute, we have tried your neo liberal economic policy. We have tested is to exhaustion and destruction. It failed.

Share markets fell at the news. Cry me a river.

Turkey, Democracy?

There have been riots in Turkey.

The young over educated but under employed elite have taken to the streets to challenge the political establishment.

This kind of looks like a hybrid between the colour revolutions in the former Soviet Union and the Arab Spring.

Erdogan, prime minister and leader of the AK Party faces a strong challenge to his authority. The AK Party is described in the West as Islamist. But it rejects this description. It is certainly conservative. And in the same way French conservatives would make a virtue of their Catholicism, or German conservatives call themselves 'Christian Democrats' the AKP is generally religiously conservative. It was founded in 2001, the core of founders splitting from the Islamist virtue party. So an outright and total rejection of any link doesn't seem honest. I generally view the AKP as 'ex Islamist' in the same way as Eastern European parties of the left can be 'ex Communist'.

Erdogan was elected. In a sign of the maturing of Turkish democracy after several years, or even decades, of a secular, socially liberal, politically conservative military based elite holding the reins of power, the election victory of the AKP was recognised. Initially Erdogan was denied the office of prime minister, because of Islamist actions in his past. His wife's wearing of a headscarf was a times legally problematic. But the party has been in power pretty much constantly since 2002.

The democratic weight of the conservative, rural poor delivering victory over the heads of the wealthy, liberal, urban elite. Parallels could be drawn with Thatcher and Reagan.

Turkey, one of those countries in which there genuinely seemed to be a 'deep state'. Where the military saw itself as the ultimate guarantor of the secular state, and democracy, saw ex generals brought to trial and convicted.

These were huge steps forward for Turkey. Whenever people hold power without being held to account, corruption takes hold. As we all know, power corrupts. The holding to account of such titans of the establishment may be called sweet revenge. To me it looked like an example to many more established democracies further west.

Today, the boot is on the other foot. Today, the AKP is the political establishment. Erdogan, once undefeatable at the ballot box and surefooted in foreign policy, is challenged at home and isolated abroad.

The initial Foreign policy was 'zero problems with our neighbours'. Turkey started to look like a real leader of the Islamic world. Ready to stand up to the US and refuse use of NATO airbases for the Iraq war. The early revolutionaries of the Arab spring saw the Turkish model of democracy in a Muslim country as an inspiration.

Turkey also managed to combine NATO membership with friendly relations with Iran. No mean feat.

Turkey was becoming a real player in the international scene. A bridge between east and West, Israel and the Arabs, Muslims and Christians.

Naturally the relationship with Israel suffered.

But now? Turkey is on better terms with Israel than with either Syria or Iran. And with over 15% of Turkey's citizens being Alevi, closely related to the Alawites of Syria, which include much of the regime, backing the opposition doesn't look too clever. Turkey has made a big mistake first in buying into the Sunni/Shia division of the Islamic world, and second in picking a side.

I used to think that anyone who bet against Israel was sure to lose. Now I think that anyone that bets against Hezbollah is certain to lose.

For Turkey it was a big mistake to pick a side in the Syrian conflict. To pick the wrong side would be unforgiveable.

For Turkey, allowing the AKP to take power was an important test of democracy passed. Now, after a decade in power, how the AKP is removed from power is the next test.

Woolwich beheading

Some fairly crazed people have beheaded a British soldier in Woolwich.

They have done so in the name of Islam, and the umma (the world wide community of Muslims).

The vast majority of Muslims utterly reject that which has been done.

The man who was killed had a 'help for heroes' T shirt on. 'help for heroes' is a charity that raises money for British soldiers, often those injured in action.

To be clear, I do not consider British soldiers fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan heroes. They are not my heroes and they are not fighting on my behalf.

Neither do I think joining the British army, or wearing a 'help for heroes' T shirt is a crime. So far as I can tell, this guy was picked a random and executed because of his association with the British army.

While it is beyond dispute that reprehensible acts have been committed by some British soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, this was not in general their purpose. It may be the purpose of some individuals in the British Army. It was the purpose of the guys who committed the crime in Woolwich.

Despite a news blackout by UK media, there has been a response by English neo Fascists, the English Defence League (EDL). They have been chanting nationalistic bullshit in Woolwich square. There has also been some limited violence.

All this is a bit alarming. A great shame.

As always I am struck by the similarities between the guys cutting the head off a soldier, and the neo fascists who respond. Most ordinary people have more in common with each other than either of these two groups.

What is alarming is the growing number of ordinary people who fail to realise this. There are increasing numbers of people who think that all British soldiers are 'heroes'. Or that Western oppression of Muslims makes all British soldiers legitimate targets. This is all nonsense.

I only hope our government does something about youth unemployment soon.

Abenomics, and the end of Austerity

In the 80s it was fashionable to see Japan as futuristic. Rock bands went there to record their live albums. Britain had a pop group named Japan.

We all had to abandon out old fashioned work practices and become like the Japanese. I even remember being shown videos (yes, that old) in school of how wonderful the Japanese and their society were.

We would all lose our jobs to the Japanese if we didn't reform and become like them.

When I look back on that, I marvel at how much has changed on the surface, but how little in practice. Nowadays Japan is ridiculed as a basket case. It is old fashioned and static. Incapable of reform and bereft of ideas.

Funny thing is, Japan has scarcely changed, and neither has the world. We are still being told that the new 'economic powerhouses' of India, Brazil, China threaten our way of life. therefore we need lower pay and less privileges to counter the threat. There is always some foreigner threatening our way of life. And some other foreigner to ridicule.

An alternative view is that Japan is not from some parallel reality, either better or worse, that Japan is on the same curve as us, just a little ahead. So the Japan of the 80s presaged the Western prosperity of the 90s. That the 'lost decade' of the 90s, Asian financial crisis, 'zombie banks', falling population and all is where we are now.

Ad it will continue, at least until someone over here implements something akin to Abenomics.

To be sure, the success of Abenomics is not proven. That does not dilute the point I am making.

Abenomics, whether success or failure, has changed the trajectory. Limping along like it has for the past 20 years is not where Japan is headed now. It goes either to recovery or sovereign default.

I would argue, it is a better policy option that continuing to try and muddle through.

Unlike endless austerity, there is at least some chance of recovery. And if not, the boil is lanced.

Syria, more dangerous than Iraq

Long after the fall of the Soviet Union, there persists a Russian sphere of influence in the world. Love it or loathe it, Russia still matters.

I suppose the reasons are partly historical. It matters today because it mattered yesterday. The relationships between the elites in Russia and those in North Korea, Cuba or elsewhere don't disappear over night.

Russia also remains a major arms supplier. And in some ex Soviet countries, Russian is still a significant language.

But the reasons are not so important. The fact remains that Russian is still important in some places. In particular, Russia matters in Syria.

Back in the cold war, most nations were either in the Soviet or the US column. Syria was firmly in the Soviet column. Today, Russia's only Mediterranean base is in Syria.

Iraq was never in the Soviet Column. Iraq was a firm ally of the west when Saddam chose to start gassing his own civilians into submission. Iraq remained in the US column when Saddam gassed his Iranian neighbours in the gulf war.

So while the Russians opposed the invasion of Iraq, it did not pose an sort of threat to their sphere of influence, so long as Iran (Western column until the Islamic revolution, thereafter kind of non aligned with Soviet leanings) was left untouched. Iranian power and influence were much enhanced by the Western invasion and occupation of Iraq.

Russia never did that much to help the Iraqi regime. Why should it?

But Syria is different. Syria is still an ally of Russia. Syria is an ally of Iran. Syria provides access to the Mediterranean for both these allies.

Syria is an ally that neither of these countries feels able to lose.

So that is why Russia is busy sending anti ship missiles to Syria.

Unfortunately, the strategic location, and the value to rivals makes Syria a prize worth fighting for.

Pretty soon we could be seeing a Russian fleet in Cyprus. Iranian revolutionary guards in Damascus. Hezbollah guerrillas in Aleppo. This will destabilise Lebanon, Turkey, Iraq, even Saudi Arabia.

The Arab monarchies of the gulf think they are ever so clever. They may have lost ground to Iran with the Shia take over of Iraq, but they reckon the same demographic logic will force Syria from the Shia to the Sunni camp.

They think they can ride the tiger of the Arab revolutionary wave (which we used to call he Arab spring) through Damascus, and stop it before it reaches Bahrain, Oman or Qatar.

Qatar, the home of Al Jazeera has been exposed along with Saudi Arabia as a major financer of the Syrian opposition. Do these countries think they will remain aloof and immune from the civil war in Syria? However it began, Syria is now in a civil war.

Russia cannot afford for Assad to lose this civil war. This line up of great powers makes this conflict much more dangerous than Iraq. Should Obama sake American prestige on removing Assad, things will only get worse.

Many 'hawks' in Washington are keen for Obama to do just that. Perhaps they think it will somehow help Israel, despite the instability that would ensue on he Northern border. Perhaps they think cutting the supply lines from Iran to Hezbollah in southern Lebanon is worth the risk.

When a new supply line opens from Iran to Bahrain and the Eastern provinces of Saudi Arabia, which are both majority Shia, will it still be worth it? If the Assad regime does fall, whoever takes over will be no more pro western than the regimes in Iraq and Afghanistan.

They will be virulently anti Israel.

Cameron and the EU

Cameron has got himself into a terrible spot. As a young politician he was a aide to Norman Lamont, John Major's disastrous chancellor of the Exchequer who presided over the debacle of exit from the ERM. At this time he was

As a fresh leader he styled himself as the 'heir to Blair', pragmatic and socially progressive.

At election time he presented himself as a fiscal conservative and prime ministerial.

And under threat from his back benchers and a nascent right wing electoral force in UKIP, he now tacks to the right on Europe.

In short Cameron may be seen as a great political chameleon, as was Blair.

On the other hand, given his background, it is also possible to see Cameron as a throwback to an earlier age of patrician Tories.

His continued backing for the international development (aid) budget coupled with his consistent record as a social liberal (at least within the context of his party) display something other than simple pragmatism.

Mr Cameron appears to come from that class that thinks he has a God given right to rule. He thinks he was born to rule.

In that sense the career of Mr Cameron is reminiscent more of Mr Bush than Mr Blair. Both started out as representing the centrist wing of their parties (remember Bush the compassionate conservative?). Both have championed international aid, in the face of political opposition. Both have implemented some radical policies in education for the poorest.

Most importantly, both come from families which presume to know what is best for the rest of us. Both rule with a cavalier attitude of indifference. Embarking on radical shake ups of long established systems without bothering to think through he most immediate consequences. Both delegate vast slices of power to basically unelectable sidekicks (Osbourne/Cheney), who are driven by ideological fervour hard to identify in the leader. Both appear sort of semi detached from the political fray, so some conclude that real power rests with the sidekick.

There are, though, real differences. Mr Cameron has not yet managed to win an election. He therefore must engage with his coalition partners. You could argue that Mr Bush also failed to win election first time around, but he did at least win the count.

And he is not leader of a superpower, but rather prime minister of a member of that troubled partnership called the EU.

Both of these facts limit Cameron's room for manoeuvre. His response is that of the old style patrician. He tries to play the different constituencies off against one another. He tells his back benchers that he can't move to the right because of the Liberal Democrats, and the Liberal Democrats that he can't be more liberal because of his own party. Her forgets they sit next to one another in parliament. It escapes him that the whole of parliament asks what his policy would be if he had the choice, and no one knows the answer.

This is what has brought the United Kingdom to our current predicament. Mr Cameron wants the political benefit of bashing Europe. Of blaming the Liberal Democrats for his pro Europeanism. Of blaming the EU for high levels of immigration.

He wants to do all of this without actually changing anything. This sort of status quo suits him well. He wants to make a fuss at EU summits, get some special piece of paper with some special words on to show how 'strong' he is.

This is how the patricians rule.

Mr Cameron has forgotten that Twitter has been invented. The country is, at some level, aware that he says one thing about Europe, but intends to do approximately nothing about it. Hence the rise of UKIP.

We no longer live in an age where a politician speaks and we all listen to their words through established media. We live in a more democratic society, where everyone can be a part of the conversation.

For Mr Cameron, an ex PR man, for whom controlling the narrative really is everything, this is an especially difficult change to manage.

He is already to some extent an electoral failure. It is difficult to see how his career in office can end any other way.

Red Lines in international policy

Mr Obama, heavily encouraged by Mr Netanyahu and various lobbyists, has declared a 'red line'.

That is, he has said if the Syrian regime does this. He will do that.

This is a very silly policy. 'Red lines' demonstrate nothing but the weakness of a leadership that declare them.

Mr Obama has been forced to declare his red line because, as a liberal Democrat, he is sensitive to the allegation that his support for Israel is less than whole hearted. For that reason he has been pressured by lobbyists, by people within his own administration, by Mr Netanyahu to declare a Syrian 'red line'. Which if crossed would elicit a military response from the USA.

This gives the impression that policy is made not so much by Mr Obama, but whichever configuration of allies can exert enough pressure. It makes him look weak.

It is worse than that. Mr Obama has now delivered a hostage to fortune. The Syrian regime knows that it can get away with anything up to the 'red line'. And if the regime believes that US intervention is inevitable, they have a great deal of choice as to when it will come.

Once having uttered the ultimatum of red line diplomacy, decisions are out of Mr Obama's hands. Unless of course he lets Syrian cross the red line and do nothing. In which case he would look weak anyhow.

In the UK, rather than red lines, we used to talk about 'lines in the sand'. This take on the 'line drawing policy' has an implicit acknowledgement, that is whenever you draw a line in the sand across the beach, sooner or later the sea, something much bigger and stronger than the whole of humanity, will wipe that line out.

Perhaps it is in memory of the famous story about King Canute, who encouraged by his courtiers, was carried on to the beach and commanded the incoming tide to stop its advance. The sea, of course, ignored him and wet his feet.

Naturally the courtiers were punished, and flattery discredited, for a season.

Everyone telling Mr Obama and America to draw his 'red line' or line in the sand, are like Canute's idiot courtiers. It is not their credibility they are staking on this artificial line.

Mr Obama should have had the strength and good sense to ignore them. Now, after the line has been drawn, there are no good options left.

Mayday for the workers!

Happy Mayday one and all. Today is meant to be an international celebration of workers.

Many people in Europe will observe it. But rather like the European church, the European labour movement is getting older and less relevant by the year.

The average age of those on Mayday marches across Europe continues to rise, even if the financial crisis has boosted the numbers in the last few years.

One reason is the previous successes of the Labour movement. Organised Labour has made it more difficult to get rid of workers. And it has increased the rewards and benefits they get for the same amount of work. That has made employing people more expensive, and the taking on of young employees much more risky.

So there is now massive youth unemployment in Europe. and the average age of people on workers marches goes on rising.

Another reason is the loss of confidence of workers in their own importance. Globalisation has entered the popular imagination. European workers genuinely do see themselves to be in competition with Chinese and Indian workers.

There is a great deal of mythology about the strength of this competition. For example, take a look at this presentation:- http://www.slideshare.net/RajeshRajVarma/whats-wrong-with-indian-it-industry

So the Labour movement, founded to represent the oppressed, finds itself defending vested interests of privileged workers. They have become more like the guilds of the middle ages.

That is what has gone wrong with the Labour movement. The only way to fix it is to unionise people on zero hours contracts. Cleaners. Pizza deliverers. People like that.

I won't be holding my breath.

Syrian misadventure

Collectively we in the West have been doing a lot hand wringing over Syria.

What I mean by that is we are standing to one side as disaster unfolds wringing our hands in anguish, but not actually doing anything decisive.

If you want a good source of info about what is going on over there follow this blog:- http://brown-moses.blogspot.com/ or read http://www.al-monitor.com which is a good source of news for all the middle east.

Now it seems that President Obama is slowly shifting toward intervention. The trigger being alleged use of Chemical weapons by the Syrian regime of Bashar al Assad against his opponents.

Assad is an old style Arab dictator. Meaning he is something of an endangered species. The Arab monarchies of the Gulf, Jordan and Morocco have survived pretty well, but the secular dictatorships in Egypt, Tunisia and Libya have fallen.

The Yemeni regime totters. As does Assad in Syria.

What form can such intervention take? And how can it end?

What most people who favour intervention seem to want is arming of the rebels. As so often in these situations, people calling for Western intervention keep saying 'no boots on the ground'. This is not a mantra that would necessarily survive an Assad victory.

So, there are problems with intervention. As in all wars, once you take sides it becomes apparent that some of your allies are nearly as unsavoury as your enemies. Sometimes they can be even worse.

Even allying with the Soviet Union against Nazi Germany during WWII could be seen as a close call.

In Syria, the regime is close to Iran, brutal and undemocratic. The rebels are allied to al Qaeda, brutal and undemocratic. Tough choice. Weapons given to either side probably will, eventually end up pointed at some ally of the West.

Then there is the issue of who, exactly, to deliver arms to.

How can we keep account of who these guns end up being pointed at?

Finally, Syria is home to a significant Christian population, with some of the oldest monasteries and Christian artefacts in the world. Damascus itself is the world's oldest constantly inhabited city.

Will we accept responsibility for the safety of these people and artefacts? Or like Iraq, will Western intervention be a cultural and sectarian disaster?

It is easy to imagine removing Bashar al Assad. It is just as easy to imagine the people of Syria being even worse off afterward.

Terrorism in a free society

If there is a group of people, dedicated and committed to setting bombs off in public spaces, they will, eventually succeed.

This is bad news for authorities. Terrorism is, however reprehensible, a good strategy.

A couple of decades ago an IRA operative under interrogation told his captors

'You have to be lucky all the time. We only have to get lucky once'

This staement puts the power of assymetric warfare into sharp relief. Any time a bomber gets through, that is a significant victory for the terrorists. Any time a bomb gets stopped? No big deal.

So what can the authorities do?

The authorities, being as they are, near enough always clamp down, hard.

They restrict the rights of citizens.
They enhance the powers of the security forces.

As anyone who watches reports from Iran and Syria can testify, this can never work. Are we in Europe and North America really going to clamp down harder than regimes like that? Yet bombs still go off in those countries. However hard we clamp down, bombs can still go off.

As I noted at the beginning, if there is a group of people, dedicated and committed to setting bombs off in public spaces, they will, eventually succeed.

So why, then, do the authorities clamp down, when it can never work?

I don't pretend to know the full reasoning of every government clampdown, but I expect part of the reason is the need to be seen to 'do something' after an attack.

There is also the tendency to elevate the security establishment to the rank of saints. They are asked what they want to fight this new threat. Their response always involves more money and power. That is just human nature.

But the very nature of terrorism indicates that these are people who are opposed to democracy and freedom. They want to bend the world to their will by bullying. By slaughtering the innocent.

Not only are security clampdowns ineffective. They are tantamaount to surrender. When we curtail the rights of the citizenry in response to bomb attacks we present a victory to the terrorists. Giving up freedom after a bomb is a surrender of our culture. What is really needed is a coming together, a respecting of the rights of the citizen. The authorities trusting the citizenry to unite and fight the threat.

So next time when you see some police representative, someone from the armed secret services, the FBI or whatever telling us that they need these extra powers, these foreign prison camps, a bit of extraordinary rendition, 'enhanced interrogation techniques' (torture for anyone who speaks in simple truths), remember that the security establishment are just another bunch of people. They always want a bigger budget, and less responsibility.

But in a democracy, these people are our servants, not our masters. Just say NO!!!

Bombs and terrorism in Boston

So there have been some bombings again in the US. Boston. And some attempted bombings in Canada.

Firstly, I would like to express my heartfelt condolences to all those affected.

The US, until recently, lived in a kind of splendid geographic isolation. Untouched at home by war for a century or more.

Then came al Qaeda.

This was not the first brush the US had with terrorism. Timothy McVeigh and the UnaBommer would by any sensible definition be called terrorists.

Yesterday I saw a woman from Boston speaking on the TV, she mentioned someone has pointed out to her that in Northern Ireland and in Iraq people have lived with this for years.

Irish terrorism was often funded by a US organisation called NORAID. Boston and the Kennedys were also strongly associated with Irish Republicanism. Karma.

Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden were also closely associated with the US and its allies during the fight to free Afghanistan from Soviet domination. Some say that still Afghanistan has not got the high proportion of girls in school that the communists managed to achieve. Karma.

Even today the US offers some level of tacit support to the rebels in Syria. Will more karma come?

The deaths of many Iranian nuclear scientists in bombings, strange accidents etc are variously blamed on Israel and the US. Another dose of Karma?

Conspiracy theories aside (some people claim the 'deep state' has organised this to take away gun rights, and there is some suggestion that the FBI used the elder brother as an informer at some point) in security circles they call this sort of karma 'blowback'. The people responsible for implementing policies that help cause terrorism know that it does happen. That is why they have a word for it.

Again, I do not support terrorism. I do not wish for innocent Americans to suffer and die any more than I would wish it for citizens of any other country. But US policy DOES support terrorists. It has done consistently, it has done so against its closest allies. It has done so right across the world.

It continues to do so today, and will do for the forseeable future.

After 911 and George W Bush's ridiculous and undignified speech at ground zero America learnt the wrong lessons. America did not learn that pain staking data trawling, screen reading, security checking, the boring, repetitive acttivities that could have stopped that attack, and the Boston one too, was the new priority.

Instead America learnt to curtail the rights of the accused. To ignore the rights of citizens of other countries to live in peace. America threw its weight around like a humiliated bully.

It spent money on muscled men in uniform with more firepower than sense. It needed bespectacled geeky librarian types crouched in front of screens. The men in uniform help cause the problem. They do not provide any sort of solution.

So strangely I find myself in some sympathy with the gun lobby. The right to bear arms is not one which is dear to me, but curtailing the rights of the citizenry in response to this sort of Karma/Blowback, caused in part by the actions of an overbearing state, seems just plain wrong.

Putting the city in lockdown. What for? Far better the FBI learnt to spell. (What I mean by that is, while one of the Boston bombers had been interviewed by the FBI, they had not noted his return to Dagestan, a radicalised Russian republic, because the name on the passenger list was spelt differently. But as Chechen names are not in general written in the Latin, or Western, alphabet, there can be equally valid alternative spellings)

If the US wants to put an end to terrorism, it needs to withdraw from Afghanistan. Stop messing with Itran and Syria. Get rid of a whole load of special forces. Get a good portion of its drone operators checking data.

I do not think they have learnt at all. These men committed the act of murder. For murder they should be tried before a jury. All rights of those accused of criminal offences should be respected. They are not soldiers or enemy combatants, they are common criminals.

They used pressure cookers and emptied shorgun cartridges. While cruelly effective, these are not weapons of mass destruction. They killed less people than have been killed in some of the school shootings that happen from time to time. Are semi automatic rifles to be designated weapons of mass destruction?

The surviving suspect has been charged with using a weapon of mass destruction. It seems like this is an attempt to get the man executed. It is crude and silly. He should be charged with murder. Possibly multiple counts, and treated like any other criminal. When the US manipulates the law for vengeful or political purposes it undermines the rule of law. That presents a greater victory to terrorism than any amount of bombs.

Korean Teenage Games

So, the new dear/supreme/Beloved leader of North Korea is threatening to nuke his southern neighbours.

I kind of wonder why.

I am aware that South Korea and the US were engaging in joint military exercises. Whish was unnecessary, perhaps a little provocative. But nuclear war? That seems a little excessive as a response.

I fully recognise that the reporting we in the west hear might be less than neutral. But I do have the internet. I can read from other countries and continents. And having read much I think there is something irrational and unpredictable about the North Korean regime.

This does not mean they are totally bonkers in feeling unsettled by the joint military exercises between the south and the US. And when leaders of already nuclear armed nations get together and tell the world that North Korean nuclearisation is 'unacceptable' that is just hypocrisy.

Had Iraq actually had WMD like North Korea does, it would never have been invaded. Whatever else they say, the invasion of Iraq reteaches the old lesson that actions speak louder than words. Western leaders may say they will be friends to leaders who (like Saddam and Gadafi) ditch their nuclear programmes. In practice, both Saddam and Gadafi are gone. The North Korean and Iranian regimes live on.

But, despite all of that, there really is something dangerous and unpredicatable about Kim Jong Un. Some say he can't quite control the army, and the anti western rhetoric is about trying to impress them.

The general consensus seems to be that he doesn't really mean to blow us all up.

The whole thing does strike me as something akin to a teenagers tantrum. He has grown up secluded and spoilt. Detached fromt he reality of ordinary people.

Whatever anyone says, in a high stakes game of chicken, it is possible that a twitchy finger may press the button.

The end of Mrs Thatcher

Much has been said after the death of Margaret Thatcher.

And there has been some dancing in the streets.

I would like to qualify whatever I have to say about Mrs Thatcher by noting that this is really a human story. An elderly woman has died, I bear her family and friends no malice and woud wish they come to terms with their grief in privacy and in their own way.

There are many perspectives on the political career of Mrs Thatcher, but almost all boil down to one of two groups. Love and Hate.

Those that love her say two things, that the demise of those that suffered under her leadership was not of her making, but they were the victims of inexorable historical forces. It was inevitable. And that her policies changed the nation. I see a contradiction here. Were the changes a result of Mrs Thatcher's policies or of unstoppable historical forces?

Whatever you believe, managing the changes with sensitivity and tact was not a strength of Mrs Thatcher.

Her supports also claim she made Britain 'Great' again.

Those that hate her say she destroyed vast swathes of British industry and divided the nation. One might also conclude that instead of managing the decline of British power in the world, Mrs Thatcher actively encouraged the fantasy of continuing British power and influence.

Just considering the reaction to her death, we must accept that Mrs Thatcher was a divisive figure.

And this would be my first point. Truly great leaders unite their people behind them. Mrs Thatcher divided. She divided her party, her country and at times the continent of Europe. She was a charismatic leader with tremendous political achievments, I would not describe her as a great leader.

My second important point would be that Mrs Thatcher was leader of the Conservative party, but was not a conservative. Any political opinion can be described as either radical or conservative. Mrs Thatcher was gernerally radical. She was very rarely conservative.

In order to assess her career we have to agree on what her achievments were. I would summarise her career as prime minister thus:- Mrs Thatcher won a closely fought election in 1979 and unusually became a more radical prime minister than leader of the opposition. Her economic policy did not show early signs of success, within two years of taking office many British city centres were torn apart by rioting, but she was able to achieve a second election victory in 1983. This was largely due to the effect of the Falklands war and also aided by division amongst her political opponents. At the time some thought the Archbishop of Canterbury provided more coherent opposition than any political figure. Mrs Thatcher was also aided by close support of the Murdoch press.

The scale of this victory was what allowed Mrs Thatcher to reshape the political environment. Within her own party those who did not accept her world view were labelled 'wet'. In the rest of the country they were 'the enemy within'. Much of the economy which was state owned ot privatised. Many laws to restrict union activity were passed. Council tennants were permitted to buy their residences and reduced prices. Many individuals benefitted, but the collective capital of society, that which we held in common, was much reduced. One paraphrase of Mrs Thatchers own words (often offered as a quote) is 'there is no such thing as society'. While not an accurate quote this line does reveal something of her philosophical stance.

It was in the second term that Mrs Thatcher's power was at its zenith. Economic conditions were improving for a large proportion of the population. The one off bounty of privatisation of state industries coupled with the sale council houses (social housing built and owned by local government - 'councils') boosted the incomes of those with a little to spare. However privatisation coupled with restrictions on labour unions also reduced the bargaining power of workers, and allowed unemployment to rise. It was an ideological choice to target inflation rather than unemployment as the great macroeconomic problem. With North Sea oil revenue buoyant, the Thatcher government was able to preside over decline in traditional industries without problems in balance of payments or economic growth. Some would argue oil revenue masked wider economic failure. Others that it paid for the policy of unemployment. What is beyond doubt is it facilitated what the government expected to be an economic transition to a more market based economy. The government took on the labour unions, in particular a bitter one year strike by coal miners. While the leadsership on the NUM (National Union of Mineworkers) can be easily criticised, and because of the way the strike was called (miners being balloted pit by pit as opposed to nationally) many pits, particularly in Nottinghamshire, stayed open, the defeat of the miners really was the defeat of the union movement. The union movement was the bedrock of the labour movement and the labour party.

There was extensive liberalisation of financial services, which were to replace the old manufacturing industries, this culminsated in the 'big bang' in the city which allowed electronic trading of financial products.

Mrs Thatcher also signed the single European act, creating the single market (an ideological committment), but also making British law subservient to European law for the first time.

A close relationship with President Reagan (who she had first met in 1975) enhanced British influence. And also created the perception of a choice, between Atlanticist and European futures for the nation. This is an issue which is not yet resolved.

The landslide of 1983 made the election of 1987 very difficult for Labour to win. The labour party also had to cope with the erosion of its political base in the wider labour movement which impacted funding. The Conservative party had far more money to spend. Labour reduced the Conservative majority but failed to win. As her time in office wore on Mrs Thatcher seemed to become somewhat detached from reality. Her championing of the poll tax was political suicide. Log and slow, but still suicide. When announcing the birth of her grandchild she said 'We are a grandmother'. Likening herself to royalty. Her government became involved in ever more fractious disputes over Europe, her leadership was challenged, and failing to secure wholehearted support of cabinet colleagues was forced to resign.

Another mark of a truly great leader is knowing when to quit. Here too Mrs Thatcher falls a long way short.

While a political collossus who genuinely managed to shift the centre ground of British politics rightwards, I am unsure there is much positive legacy from Mrs Thatcher as a national leader.

Her achievment in becoming a female MP, party leader and Prime Minister is significant.

Her reshaping of the debate on economic and social policy also.

But as for lasting legacy in the nation, the liberalisation of financial services has already ended in tears.

The initial boon of privatisation has passed, a majority of the public would now prefer the utilities back in public hands.

The union movement still stands shattered.

Local government was emasculated, for all her hatred of the state, Mrs Thatcher was a great centraliser of power.

The notion of a 'special relationship' between the US and UK lives on in the imagination of many British, but was never so important to the US. Obama's piot to Asia amply demonstrates the limited relevance of Europe, never mind the UK. The question of Britain's relationship with Europe remains a poisonous one for politicians of all hues.

Argentina is again becoming restive over the Falklands. The transition from Empire to middle ranking European power has been hindered rather than helped by the impact of Mrs Thatcher's term in office.

Many individuals are living in privately owned ex council properties, but there is a housing crisis in Britain, with woefully inadequate provision of low cost housing.

Not even the question of the UK nuclear deterrent is truly settled.

So far as positive legacy, little is left, if anything at all. Even Mrs Thatcher's reputation as a tax cutter fails to withstand scrutiny. The proportion of GDP taken in tax being higher at the end of her timein office than at the beginning. With North Seal oil in decline, public finances were not on any sort of long term sound footing.

It seems to me that Mrs Thatcher, rather than facing up to the truly hard decisions involving British decline on the world stage, actually ducked them. A divisive figure at home, she used whatever leeway she had to neutralise political enemies both inside and outside her party. Her economic policy stands discredited. Growth was higher in the three decated leading to 1979 than in the subsequent years. Her social polices were disastrous. Her efforts at foreign policy bequeath a legacy of problems which  cannot be addressed until Britain decisively opts for in or out of Europe, another question which her government sidestepped.

Mrs Thatcher has a singular achievment in becoming Britain's first woman Prime Minister. There is little else positive to remember her for.

Fascists in football

Recently Paolo Di Canio was appoined manager of Sunderland football club.

Di Canio has, in the past, described himself as a fascist. He has said Benito Mussolini, the Italian fascist dictator of the 1930s and second world war was 'misunderstood'. He has been seen giving straight arm salutes to fans.

All of which I find a bit offensive and silly.

Whether or not Mr Di Canio should be barred from football management as a result of his expressing unpalatable opinions is a separate matter.

In general, I am a believer in freedom of expression. Such statements are meaningless unless applied to people with whom you disagree. Even fascists believe those agreeing with them should be free to express that agreement.

So should Di Canio be barred from football management? On what grounds? I am not that impressed by his record as a manager, but that is not the point. Were we to find out that the greatest football manager in the world is susceptible to a bit of fascism, would that make him unemployable? I imagine not.

It is just one example of hypocrisy is sport. Up until quite recently, certainly in the 1980s, racist chanting at football grounds was commonplace. This was an issue that football failed to really deal with. Only when this sort of behaviour was more generally acceptable in society did this sort of thing stop.

At that point it became a massive priority to stop it in other countries too. Suddenly countries which were still behind the Berlin wall when our fans persisted in chanting racist nonsense are expected to achieve the same level of tolerance that took us decades. It can seem like a way to intimidate the opposition. It reminds me of how for hundreds of years the US abused its black population, then within twenty years of civil rights legislation was applying sanctions to South Africa. Hypocrisy.

It is just this sort of attitude that leads to isolation of minority opinion. This sort of boycotting may be done with the best of intentions, but it will not reduce prejudice, but only serve to drive it underground. Is that to be an objective?

Should a person's political opinions have any relevance to the job they do? Who is it that decides when a person's politics crosses the line into unacceptability? The media? Really?

Whatever else he has done, Mr Di Canio should be judged on his results as manager alone.

Single state of Bibi

So Obama visits Israel. Despite the famously frosty relationship between Bibi (Netanyahu, Israeli prime minister) and Barack (Obama), things seem to be going well.

Bibi says he will let the Palestinians have a state, so long as they are good. And don't ask for their bit of Jerusalem. And let settlers colonise most of their land.

Obama says it is very important to let the Palestinians live in a peaceful Bantustan. But the grown ups will decide who they are allowed to be friends with.

Why America is so beholden to Israel is an interesting question. I think it is something to do with Evangelical Protestantism. People may rail against the 'Jewish' or 'Israeli' lobby, but only about 1.7% of US citizens are Jewish. It is the weird fixation some sects of American Protestantism have with Israel and ancient versions of the bible that cause the trouble. There are not enough Jewish voters to make much of a difference. There are quite a few Muslim voters to counterbalance. It is the evangelical protestants that make the issue important. And the mythology that you really can't go anywhere without AIPAC and the Israeli lobby. The description of America's friendship with Israel also entailed the word 'eternal'. I think this kind of shows how the whole thing is packaged for religious fanatics.

The Palestinians demand a state within the 1967 borders (including East Jerusalem) and the refugees' right of return to the ancestral homes. The UN and polite opinion agrees with the 1967 borders thing, but also agrees to do nothing about it. No one really thinks that it will happen soon. The Americans have got so intertwined with the Israelis that they have ceased to be polite. Prominent Americans subscribe to the Israeli dogma that Jerusalem is "the eternal and indivisible capital of Israel". Wow. Eternal. Was this a revelation from the Most High? 

There are other dogmatic statements that the pro Israel lobby tries to make people say. They insist that everyone recognise "Israel's right to exist". This is emotive. The Holocaust proposed a final solution of eliminating all Jews, that is eliminating Israel. The dogmatic statement regarding Israel's "right to exist" leads you to agree rather than get on the side of the Nazis. I find it insidious and divisive. Perhaps Bibi Netanyahu should be asked if he recognises Palestine's 'right to exist'? It is in light of the 'right to exist' dogma that Israel describes Iran as an existential threat. In aquiescing to the 'right to exist' dogma you are also pressed to recognise Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state. This is not something I can agree to. I see religion as a personal choice. I would be glad to have a country called Israel within the 1967 boundaries operating as a democracy. I would expect all citizens of that country to have the same rights. Jewish people may constitute a majority, but if many Jews and Arab citizens later come to define themselves as secular, would they need to be deported to maintain the Jewish majority?

But back to the 1967 boundaries. These are viewed as the borders of a future Palestinian state. If you take the time to look at the map of Israel & Palestine, you will notice this gives the Palestinians two areas, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Can these to pieces of land really form a single state? I would suggest not. States with non contiguous territory only really work if you can get from one part to the other via the sea.

So the 1967 boundaries are compromised. And even if Israel was prepared to take all their people back behind them, I am not sure a two state solution could work. Therefore I think the time has come to recognise that the two state solution is a non starter. The world has tried to negotiate it time and again. We have all tried and we have failed. The Israelis blame Palestinian intransigence. Likewise the Palestinians blame Israeli intransigence. Whatever. The two sides cannot reach agreement.

There is only one solution. A single state. Let all the people of Israel and Palestine live together in a single state. Israel has consistently refused to recognise Palestinian sovereignty over the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Israel also declines to recognise this land as occupied. Normally Israeli government ministers refer to this land as 'the territories'. Fair enough. Let it be a single territory Israeli territory and Palestinian territory, a single state. One person, one vote.

Neither Jewish nor Muslim. Just a single secular state. A democracy.

Jews may well be in the minority in ten or twenty years' time. Unlucky. The Israeli people and government have had plenty of opportunity to put a palatable deal before the Palestinians. They have not put Palestinian good faith to the test. Just as Israeli policy has strangled the two state solution before it was fully born, the US Israeli lobby, in tying itself so tightly to Evangelical Protestantism sows the seed of its own demise. Religion is a dying force in American society. If evangelical protestants could guarantee you an American majority, we would have a republican president. Tying your colours to that mast nowadays puts you in the minority.