A New UK Approach to Israel-Palestine – More of Same from US and Israel by Liam Bailey

Liam

By Liam Bailey
featured writer
Dandelion Salad
9 January, 2009
Crossposted on Baily Mail: Middle East Conflict

2009-01-06 23:56:07 **opinion**

Once an avid follower of and commentator on the Israel-Palestine conflict, unfortunately I haven’t been able to follow it as much in recent times. Even during the current Israel action I have been unable to follow it as much as I once was, and anytime I have felt the need to write an article it has been lost in a sense of hopelessness that, to be truthful, is probably the real reason I stopped following it so avidly.

But I just flicked the news on, Sky News was showing the UN Security Council Meeting live, and I heard the Israeli representative Gabriela Shalev say something that definitely warranted my writing about: after saying that Israel had shown restraint throughout 8 years of rocket fire, which isn’t true and I will come back to, when explaining why Israel was forced to act she said, “to grant our citizens the basic right [long pause] of a normal life.”

What about the Palestinians right to a normal life, the right to move freely around your own lands, the right to farm land that belongs to your family, the right to travel outside your own borders, the right to export and import goods, the right to run businesses, employ staff and have enough money to buy food to feed your family and fuel to heat your home, all aspects of a modern “normal life” and all impossible dreams for Palestinians living under Israeli occupation. And as for the 8 years restraint, does Miss Shalev think we have forgotten Autumn Clouds and Summer Rains, not to mention all the prolonged air-only operations, arrest raids and mini-incursions into Gaza in those same 8 years?

But the Israeli representatives’ statement wasn’t even what brought me straight onto the keyboard, it was the statements of UK representative David Milliband that really shocked me into writing. He said:

“The truce between June and December 2008, in truth was less than that, rockets were fired into Israel, Palestinians died as a result of Israeli military operations, and endured months of deprivation.”

David Milliband’s statements, — not just the snippet above but his entire statement — for me, represent a fair and balanced approach by the UK to the Israel-Palestine conflict, which gives me more hope than I have had for a long time. Of course many will say it is only to be expected as part of PM Browns endeavour to be as far away from a US puppet as possible after the Blair fiasco, but for me David Milliband went a lot further than would have been necessary to distance the UK viewpoint from the US. After all the US statement parroted by Condoleezza Rice was the same statement they have made since the first bombs fell, Israel has the right to defend itself, the conflict is Hamas’ fault (they started it).

One thing that didn’t surprise me in Tonight’s news was that Israel had bombarded a UN school that was being used as a refuge for fleeing Palestinian civilians including children. Of course it was an accident, I mean a country with the sophisticated spy-planes and satellite guided bombs would have absolutely no way of knowing where a UN school was in a place the size of Gaza.

In reality the bombing of the UN school, just as they hit a UN facility during the last Lebanon conflict, and on the day when the UNSC is to meet, fulfils two aims, it says to the UNSC “we don’t care what you decide or resolute upon, we, like the US are a law onto ourselves, and also the “accidental” killing of innocent civilians, primarily children, in the hope of turning the Palestinians at large against Hamas and Islamic Jihad.

I was with my dad when I heard that Israel had begun a massive campaign of air-strikes, and I said to him “at some point in this conflict, Israel will hit a place where there is absolutely no chance that rockets or anything else had been fired from, killing Palestinian civilians and several Palestinian children in the hope of turning the Palestinians against Hamas,” and it happened tonight.

Please accept my apologies if the UN school was not the first blatant intentional killing of Palestinian civilians of the current conflict; as I said I haven’t been following the conflict closely.

see

Red Cross critical of Israel + Paramedics risking their lives amid war in Gaza

Mosaic News – 1/7/09: War on Gaza – Day 12

Temporary halt to Gaza bombing a paltry response, says Médecins Sans Frontières + What MSF is seeing

Kucinich: WAKE AMERICA! Israel is Killing Children With Your Tax Dollars!

Israel-Palestine-Gaza-Occupation

Israel to Free 200 Palestinian Prisoners By Liam Bailey

By Liam Bailey
featured writer
Dandelion Salad

Middle East Conflict
2008-08-17

The Israeli Cabinet has voted to free 200 Palestinian prisoners as a gesture of goodwill to Palestinian “president” Mahmoud Abbas, likely a final goodwill gesture before Olmert is replaced in September. Israel is thought to be holding between 8,500 and 11,000 Palestinian prisoners, at least 700 hundred of which are children. So how about a gesture of common decency: releasing all the Palestinian children, instead of this superficial gesture which is more to enhance Israel’s international image than goodwill to the Palestinians.

Carter Meets Hamas: Much Ado about Nothing By Liam Bailey

Liam

By Liam Bailey
featured writer
Dandelion Salad

Middle East Conflict
April 29, 2008

2008-04-20 21:36:32 **opinion**

Ex-U.S. President Jimmy Carter has caused quite a stir, in the press and in the U.S. and Israeli governments, when he met with Hamas leaders in Cairo, as part of his Middle East visit; his personal mission of peace.

Okay, well done for brokering the peace deal between Egypt and Israel, but you had some clout back then and Egypt actually posed a threat to Israel. Now you have no clout, and Hamas poses as much threat to Israel’s existence as a grasshopper does to a Lion’s; no threat at all.

Obama disappointed me today, by criticising Carter for meeting with a terrorist group, repeating the necessary pro-Israeli line that any Presidential hopeful must follow. As I have written before I believe Obama’s statements show a hidden pro-Palestinian stance, but to have any chance of getting elected he must play the game of I’m more pro-Israeli than you are.

I just hope that, should Obama get elected he uses his one chance in life to make a real difference in the world to do the right thing in the Israel-Palestine conflict, and by the right thing I mean: make sure the Palestinians get a state on at least what they had before the 1967 war.

I agree with everything that has been written about Carter’s statements during his trip: yes, any deliberate killing of civilians is an act of terrorism, and yes, any peace negotiations must include Hamas, and yes, any peace negotiations must run alongside Israel stopping the building of its settlements, and pulling all Israeli citizens back behind the 1967 border, and resolving the issue of Palestinian refugees. But it’s just not going to happen.

There is nothing in it for Israel. Israel is losing nothing from the status quo, in fact it is substantially gaining. Israel at war is the single biggest recipient of U.S. military aid, Israel at war can build a great big wall to defend its citizens, which incidentally runs meters into what should be Palestinian territory after a peace deal, i.e. well outside the 1967 border, Israel at war can starve an entire population and force them to live, not only in abject poverty but surrounded, at times and in places, by their own waste.

But it is not just the fact that Israel can do whatever it wants and call it self defence, it is the reason behind Israel’s free reign; the biggest problem: the ongoing, unwavering and unquestioning support of Israel by successive U.S. administrations, especially the current Bush administration, and the fact that reliance on the substantial Jewish vote prevents any President or hopeful speaking or acting against Israel in any way.

Why shouldn’t Israel take this opportunity, while they have an avid supporter in the White House to steal yet more Palestinian land by building settlements, why shouldn’t Israel demolish Palestinian homes and continue unabated the Judaization of Jerusalem — who’s going to stop them.

For Israel, international support for shunning Hamas is like a get out of jail free card; if they are forced by Bush and Rice to reach an agreement with moderate Abbas, or at least to ramp up the efforts thereof, they know that Hamas will literally blow it out of the water.

In fact Palestinian mistrust of Abbas may assist Hamas in that aim. Whereas Israel being forced to include Hamas in talks, any resulting peace deal would almost certainly have wide support in the Palestinian population — hence Israel will avoid it at all cost.

see

Carter: Include Hamas in peace bid + video

Carter’s Peace Mission By Mike Whitney

Hamas suicide attack in Gaza (video)

Carter meets with Hamas (video)

Hamas Blocking & Stealing Fuel Supplies into Gaza is Wrong By Liam Bailey

Liam

By Liam Bailey
featured writer
Dandelion Salad

Middle East Conflict
April 29, 2008

2008-04-27 20:52:58 **opinion**

Well, what am I supposed to say now? Hamas are now making the situation worse for their own people by stealing from the precious little fuel that is being supplied, and preventing other supplies from getting through.

I have always been a big supporter of Hamas but that is just wrong. The consensus is that Hamas think turning the travesty into a crisis will force the international community to act, but quite simply, it won’t.

Anyone in the world that would act if they could is already calling it a crisis, and have been doing so since varying amounts of time after the siege began. The people who could act but won’t, will never call it a crisis, and will continue to say Hamas must meet the three demands asked of it for the Gaza siege to be lifted, namely: recognise Israel, adhere to previous agreements, and cease all acts of violence.

But Israel don’t have to meet, or even look like meeting any of the demands asked of them, like withdrawing and returning the land taken in 1967, and allowing for and assisting with the creation of a Palestinian state with east Jerusalem as its capital, and stop attacks and arrest raids on Palestinians, of which there was one just today (Apr 27).

Not only does Israel not need to meet any of those demands, but it has been given a rite of passage to break the 4th Geneva convention against the collective punishment of civilians for the actions of allied fighters, one of the most crucial international laws ever written, and which the Jewish Israeli government should respect as much as, if not more than any other.

Put simply, Hamas must meet three demands that had previously been asked in return for a Palestinian state and peace, just to stop Israel from breaking international law, without getting anything in return. When ex U.S. President Carter said the peace process had started going in reverse it was the biggest understatement ever.

So you can see why they would be getting desperate, but what is Hamas struggling for if not to make things better for its people, to make things worse, no matter what the reason, is, as far as I’m concerned completely wrong.

Something must be Done to Stop the Gaza Siege By Liam Bailey

Liam

By Liam Bailey
featured writer
Dandelion Salad

The Bailey Mail
April 16, 2008

2008-04-13 17:16:42 **opinion**

This is unbelievable, why is the world allowing Israel to create an outright humanitarian disaster, or at least, why is Israel still being treated like butter wouldn’t melt.

They are to keep Gaza’s main fuel depot closed for a “few days more.” The measure was imposed because of a Palestinian attack that killed two Israeli civilians, and Israel has decided to use it as an excuse to intensify its collective punishment of the entire Gaza population.

I am not ashamed to say that it makes me sick to my stomach. Does a Gazan baby in intensive care deserve to die because of power shortages, in retaliation for the death of an Israeli civilian? In the Zionist Israeli government of Jewish supremacist’s, just how many Palestinian lives are worth one Israeli live?

The way I look at it is, in all the man-made humanitarian disasters there have been around the world, the leaders who cause them become international pariah’s, under pressure from the entire international community to rectify the situation, all the while pouring humanitarian aid efforts into the affected areas. Yet Israel is slowly, surely and deliberately causing, what looks like becoming one of the worst humanitarian disasters in my lifetime, and they are still being treated as a great ally of democracy, freedom and peace — whack!

What makes it worse, is not the fact that Israel is not punished for its openly contravening the Fourth Geneva Convention by collectively punishing an entire population for the actions of its armed resistance, but the fact that it controls everything that enters or leaves Gaza, meaning aid can’t get in, and the sick can’t get out. Israel is carrying out the slow and painful murder of an entire population, those that don’t die from direct Israeli actions, the power shortages, or lack of property medical care, are being killed mentally by Israel taking away their will to live.

What’s more, Israel is not naive to the fact that the situation is strengthening Palestinian armed resistance as is so commonly written, it is deliberately strengthening the resistance; provoking further attacks so they can continue doing what they like in “self defence”.

The world at large has to end this and we have to do it now.

see

Mosaic News – 4/14/08: World News from the Middle East

Israel kills top Palestinian commander

Uri Avnery congratulates Carter for decision to meet with Hamas leaders

Self-help for self-haters

Middle East Conflict: No Middle Ground By Liam Bailey

Liam

By Liam Bailey
featured writer
Dandelion Salad

The Bailey Mail
April 13, 2008

2008-04-10 20:51:13 **opinion**

The Israel-Palestine conflict is one of the greatest injustices in the history of mankind. Middle East Conflict: No middle ground is my outlet to release my true feelings on the matter, and hopefully achieve readership wide enough to educate some people of the up-coming generations who might be able to do something about it.

This was originally going to be the first part of a series covering all the apparently unsolvable issues in the conflict, but I was out walking and thinking, and now it is going to be an opinion piece, about Israel’s government not wanting peace, what they do want, and their strategies for making sure they get it.

Download (right click, save target as) Middle East Conflict: No Middle Ground as a PDF ebook.

Mistaken Perceptions of Israel’s Intentions:

In the Israel-Palestine conflict, Israel is perceived as the good guy, it is assumed the all Israel’s violent acts are in self-defence and that all Israel wants is peace.

Meanwhile the Palestinians are seen as the bad guys, and while some, the so called moderates are portrayed in a better light, it is generally perceived that the Palestinian’s main cause is to wipe Israel off the map.

All the above perceptions exist because that is the way Israel wants it, and Jewish lobby groups around the world make sure the view is carried around the world. This is an aim helped by the fact that every U.S. President must be pro-Israel to get ahead, and especially by the current truly pro-Israel President, who has become a squawking box for Israeli lies. Bush is not necessarily taken in by them, but pushes them because the mis-conceptions Israel wants to become reality about the Palestinians, tie in with the U.S’ desire to maintain global fear of Islamic terrorism, allowing them to invade oil rich countries, like Iraq and Iran.

What Israel Really Wants:

• To make sure the world continues to believe their main desire is for two states coexisting in peace.
• To maintain the global perception that they are in genuine fear for the existence of Israel and any barbaric acts and contraventions of international law are acceptable in self defence.
• All with the overall aim: to maintain Jewish predominance and supremacy in the territory currently belonging to them, and to take possession of further land including all of Jerusalem by any means necessary. Currently the favoured method is settlement building, and forced evictions with trumped up charges on incorrect building permits, as these methods attracts less international resentment.

On top of that there is the millions of dollars in U.S. military aid to Israel in its constant state of attack, which Israel would surely lose a hefty chunk of should a peace deal be reached.

Israel’s Methods for Achieving its Aims:

To ensure success in their aims Israel must keep provoking the Palestinians: by causing internal rivalry and violence, and if Palestinian violence towards Israel lulls, by launching (perfectly acceptable to the international community) arrest raids. Both of course, alongside constant provocations like the wall and the Gaza blockade, which also causes exacerbation and desperation within Palestinians, as well as removing their will to live, thus causing continual desperation fuelled violence and possibly even further suicide attacks.

Closing Statement:

So, as I have said before, and I will say again, until the world realises that it cannot be assumed that all Israel’s intentions are completely honourable and based on a desire to find peace, and the Israeli engineered misconceptions stop being treated as fact by U.S. administrations, in short until the conflict stops being viewed in a pro-Israel light by U.S. administrations, there will be no peace, no middle ground.

Brown Meets South Africa Leader over Zimbabwe Election By Liam Bailey

By Liam Bailey
featured writer
Dandelion Salad

The Bailey Mail
April 9, 2008

2008-04-07 19:23:51 **news**

UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown is to hold private talks with South African president Thabo Mbeki, in the hopes that Mbeki will exert pressure on Zimbabwe’s President Robert Mugabe to announce the results of the recent Presidential election. UK foreign minister David Milliband has said the United Nations is joined in its determination to have the results announced.

The western world is not only desperate for the results to be announced but desperate for the announcement to mean an end of Mugabe’s dictatorship.

Mugabe became notorious around the world for his ejecting white farmers from their land, and stealing it back for the state, using any means necessary. His rule has become more violent as time has gone on, with protestors being badly beaten, and preventing the world press from entering the country to show the world the true extent of his brutality.

The international community is also desperate for the result to be announced; because they fear Mugabe is doctoring the results. And if the result brings about a run-off between Mugabe, and his leading rival Morgan Tsvangirai, there are calls to send in international observers to make sure the results are fair.

I will also be hoping that the result will say goodbye Mugabe, and I would bet that is what the people have voted for, whether it is what the result will say I don’t know, and the international response if it doesn’t is also unknown. Watch this space for further updates on the continued uncertainty over Zimbabwe’s future.

US-Russia Relations: Are We Heading for World War III? By Liam Bailey

By Liam Bailey
featured writer
Dandelion Salad
The Bailey Mail
April 5, 2008

2008-04-05 20:54:49 **opinion**

As U.S. President Bush meets with President Putin in Russia in an attempt to repair relations between the two countries, after Bush’s plans to put a radar guided missile system in two soviet satellite states has took us far too close to another cold-war scenario, I want to make my feelings on the matter clear.

Israel Moves To Provoke Fresh Palestinian Violence By Liam Bailey

Liam

By Liam Bailey
featured writer
Dandelion Salad

The Bailey Mail
April 2, 2008

2008-04-01 07:59:14 **news**

Despite the fact that there have been very few (if any) Palestinian rockets landing in Israeli territory over the past few days, four Israeli tanks rolled into central Gaza in a pre-dawn raid and killed two Hamas members. This on top of new Israeli plans to build yet more settler homes in East Jerusalem, which has, is and will prompt massive anger within Palestinians, Muslims, Arabs, liberals and anyone else with a thread of decency around the world. If the Israelis can’t even adhere to an informal agreement to stop violence if the Palestinians stopped the rockets, what chance do we have that they will adhere to a larger agreement to return the land, especially as they continue to annex yet more and more Palestinian land. Over 40 years ago, Israel annexed land with its military, and ever since it has been annexing land by building Jewish homes and structures on it, in the hope that after what the Nazis did the world will never have the stomach to expel Jews from their homes, whether they sit land the world says should be give back to Palestine or not.

Sudan Maybe Poised to Attack Chad By Liam Bailey

Liam

By Liam Bailey
featured writer
Dandelion Salad

The Bailey Mail
March 27, 2008

2008-03-26 22:10:30

The land-mark accord reached between Chad and Sudan just two weeks ago is disintegrating, as both governments accuse each other of launching new raids into their respective territories, via their various proxies.Ambassador Abd-al-Mahmud Abd-al-Halimthe, Sudan’s Permanent Envoy to the UN, told his government’s news agency:

“[Chad has] carried out major operations and logistic arrangements and facilitated the entry of rebels from inside Chadian territory to carry out sabotage acts and destabilise security in [Sudan’s] Darfur region,”

According to the article, the Ambassador has informed the UN of Chad’s violations. A pro-Sudanese website speculated that Chad is poised to launch a major offensive into Sudan, which would see thousands more civilians die in the now notorious Darfur region.

Ahmad Allam-Mi, Chad’s foreign Minister staunchly denied the Sudanese claims to Diplomats at a meeting in Chad’s capital N’djamena, a government source told IRIN on condition of anonymity. The source also said that Allam-Mi presented the diplomats with “irrefutable proof of the intentions of Sudan to attack”.

It is quite possible that Allam-Mi did present diplomats with proof that Sudan intends to attack. According to a western Diplomat who attended the N’djamena meeting and also spoke to IRIN on condition of anonymity, “It [Chad] has been weakened [by recent rebel attacks] and to invade Sudan now would not just be stupid, it would be suicidal.”

The Diplomat also said he was not so sure of Sudan’s intentions regarding attacking Chad. But if Sudan’s government has been behind the recent rebel attacks on Chad, which it almost definitely has, then the weakening effect the attacks have had will quite possibly be seen by Sudan’s militant government as a chance to good to miss.

Best U.S. Candidate for Israel-Palestine Peace By Liam Bailey

Liam

By Liam Bailey
featured writer
Dandelion Salad

The Bailey Mail
March 24, 2008

2008-03-24 21:44:45 **opinion**

I have been reading a lot lately about where the various Presidential hopefuls stand on various issues in the Middle East, and when it comes to the Israel-Palestine conflict, I’m afraid the answer for all of them is Pro-Israel. They have to be that way to have any hope of being elected, because of the reliance on getting the Jewish vote in swing states like Florida and Michigan, which would never vote for any candidate that would end the U.S’ staunch support for Israel.

It makes me angry. To be honest it is always difficult to get an idea of the candidates’ views on the Middle East, because they are advised not to talk about it unless it is absolutely unavoidable, but I doubt there hasn’t been a President in all these years that has sympathised with the Palestinians, and saw the conflict’s continuance for what it truly is, Israel’s unwillingness to give back the land.

So, I thought, fair enough they have to hint at their support for Israel, and their continuing of the “special relationship”, but why not give up on it and do what’s right in office. And the only answer I am left with is the desire for a second term; desire to keep your party in the White House, and the fact that both have obviously been more important to all President’s in almost thirty years, than forcing Israel to abide by UN Resolution 242, give back all the land it took in 1967, and saving all these thousands of lives, past, present and future.

I personally believe that if Barack Obama could speak his mind on the conflict he would be pro-Palestinian. In February he told members of the Jewish community in Cleveland that he sought to open up the debate:

“Understandably, because of the pressure that Israel is under,” he was reported as saying, “I think the US pro-Israel community is sometimes a little more protective or concerned about opening up that conversation.”

He was also harsh on my pet hate, people receiving the “anti-Israel and anti-Semite” tags if they don’t adopt the most right-wing of Israeli stances, or criticise any element of Israel’s behaviour in any way, what Obama called the “strain within the pro-Israel community that says that unless you adopt an unwavering pro-Likud approach to Israel, then you’re anti-Israel, and that can’t be the measure of our friendship with Israel”.

These things are causing worry in the Jewish communities, and his association with the preacher Jeremiah Wright, who has spoken out against Israel’s “state terrorism” against the Palestinians, hasn’t helped either.

If Obama does become the Democrats candidate for President, it will all come down to whether losses in the Jewish vote, are balanced out by his being the most definite on ending the Iraq war and bringing US troops home swiftly, how his economic policies stand up against the others, and obviously we have to factor in the potential for a massively expanded Black vote for the first Black Presidential Candidate in American History.

It gets to me that the other candidates draw attention to the fact that Obama has expressed a willingness to talk to Ahmadinejad as if it’s a bad thing, it’s like schoolchildren running telling tales, miss, miss, he isn’t repeating what you want to hear, he isn’t as pro-Israel as we are — pathetic.

But when all is said and done, even if Obama does become the first black President in the history of America, just how far he will be willing to go to pressure Israel to return the land, allow the creation of a Palestinian state and end the conflict, will all depend on how much he wants a second term, and whether he weighs his party loyalties more than his true feelings and/or sympathy for the Palestinian’s plight.

Democratic Presidential Hopefuls Pin Hopes on Iraq Resentment By Liam Bailey

Liam

By Liam Bailey
featured writer
Dandelion Salad

The Bailey Mail
March 24, 2008

2008-03-22 12:50:28 **opinion**

The two main hopefuls in the race to become the Democratic Presidential candidate are both pinning their hopes on the level of resentment for the Iraq war. Barack Obama especially is relying on it, and not only a high level resentment for the war, but also a high level of support for a swift withdrawal. But as the situation in Iraq has improved and there haven’t been dozens of US soldiers deaths on the news, the void has been filled by the slow and painful death of the U.S. economy, and so the Iraq war isn’t the biggest issue on voter’s minds at the moment. Barack Obama has repeated continually that within 16 months he will withdraw all troops but a small residual force that would continue to train the Iraqi forces, and possibly deal with threats from Al Qaeda, Obama has outright stated that he will end the war in 2009 — his exact words were:

“I will bring this war to an end in 2009, so don’t be confused.”

Shortly after those strong words, Samantha Powers put her foot in it and said what should only be thought in a BBC interview, that Obama “will, of course, not rely on some plan that he’s crafted as a presidential candidate or a US Senator. He will rely upon a plan – an operational plan – that he pulls together in consultation with people who are on the ground to whom he doesn’t have daily access now… It would be the height of ideology to sort of say, ‘Well, I said it, therefore I’m going to impose it on whatever reality greets me.”

Though Powers’ views were widely seen as a realistic take on policy making, she received considerable heat for the comments, obviously because they detracted from Obama’s campaign’s main policy, and did the opposition’s job for them — though they would have had to wait till until he had actually gone back on a policy. Ms Powers later resigned after calling Mrs Clinton a “monster”.

Hilary Clinton is being a, little more cautious, promising to start withdrawing troops two months into her Presidency and to remove 1-2 battle groups per month, but not committing to a timeframe for all troops to be withdrawn — Clinton again would leave a residual force in place.

Meanwhile the main republican candidate Senator John McCain has benefited from the successes of the surge in Iraq, having been a big supporter of the policy. He is maintaining pretty much the same line as Bush has for the last few years — stay the course — that a withdrawal would be seen as a defeat by the extremists and would only strengthen their cause. He did however take it a little too far, saying that the US should stay in Iraq for 100 years if need be. A statement pounced on by Hilary Clinton:

“Senator McCain and President Bush claim withdrawal is defeat. Well, let’s be clear, withdrawal is not defeat. Defeat is keeping troops in Iraq for 100 years.”

The downside of a withdrawal so soon after the election, advocated by both Clinton and Obama is that it may damage Iraq’s legislative elections due to be held towards the end of 2009. Among the downsides of indefinitely “staying the course” are: U.S. forces will endure battle fatigue, the cost will continue to spiral, many more US troops will die and the Iraqi government may never be able to manage the security of Iraq, if they feel they will never have to.

Truth be told, it is unlikely that the ability for the Iraqi government to hold their legislative elections or to secure their country for that matter, will stop those who would vote democrat to bring the US troops home in a hurry, after thousands have died for what is widely seen as an illegitimate war of aggression and imperialism.

In closing: I think that Clinton and Obama are playing the right strategy by saying they will withdraw US forces pronto, but I also think it is prudent that they should properly analyse all facts on the ground before proceeding to enact those policies. But they won’t even get that chance if their plans to revive the economy aren’t equally as popular with the voting public.

UK Government Determined to Pass Genetic Engineering Bill By Liam Bailey

Liam

By Liam Bailey
featured writer
Dandelion Salad

The Bailey Mail
March 24, 2008

2008-03-23 13:34:51 **opinion**

The UK government is absolutely determined to push through a bill that would allow scientists, to create hybrid human/animal embryos and experiment in creating viable stem cells for use in the treatment of human terminal illnesses.

My first thought was “God No – they can’t do that”, but I feel obliged to tell you I was a big fan of dark Angel, a TV series where Jessica Alba starred as the victim of a US government program to that did exactly what the UK government now wants to let scientists do, only with the aim of creating super soldiers, and then when they all escaped the government hunted them down; funny how sci-fi becomes reality all too often.

So my initial feeling was probably something to do with that, but when I realised that the research is to try and save human lives my reaction changed. You never know what is around the corner, and when all is said and done, no one wants to lose a loved one, and most would give anything to prevent it, so if this research could lead to discoveries that save lives then I am afraid I’m all for it.

Not everybody shares my feelings however, the government is coming under increasing pressure from the church, and Brown has had to offer to let MPs tell the government if they cannot support parts of the Bill for ethical or religious reasons, before receiving “permission” to vote against the government. These allowances will only be made where it doesn’t threaten the passage of the bill.

It does make me wonder why Gordon Brown is so desperate for the bill to go through? I was discussing the bill with a mate the other night and he joked: “is that really a nervous affliction or is there a little pig DNA in the mix.” I also wonder, if Brown has to make such allowances for his party’s support in getting the bill through, how he hopes to get it passed with the opposition?

Palestinian Groups Should Distance Themselves from Al Qaeda By Liam Bailey

Liam

By Liam Bailey
featured writer
Dandelion Salad

The Bailey Mail
March 22, 2008

2008-03-21 10:25:46 **opinion**

I have said it before and I will say it again, the best possible thing for the Palestinians to do is distance themselves completely and utterly from Al Qaeda. The Palestinians are in a legitimate fight for their own freedom, and because the struggle is the most legitimate armed Muslim struggle in the Muslim world, it is being used by Al Qaeda as a cause for recruitment. It has been used time and time again over the years, and has been used again Mar 20, in the second audio release by Osama Bin Laden in as many days.

In the tape aired by Al Jazeera, which hasn’t yet been confirmed as authentic, the man claiming to be Bin Laden says the best way for Muslim’s to aide in the Palestinian struggle is to go and fight the Jihad in Iraq. His exact words were:

“The nearest jihad battlefield to support our people in Palestine is the battlefield of Iraq. The people of the blessed land should sense the great favour God has bestowed upon them and do what they should do to support their mujahideen brothers in Iraq. It is a great opportunity and a major duty for my brothers the Palestinian emigrants [in Arab countries], between whom and jihad on the plains of Jerusalem a barrier has been built.”

The BBC article on the speech ended with something I have read before, always with great scepticism: that the U.S.’ efforts in Iraq, along with the capture and killing of several Al Qaeda’s senior members are proving to be major set-backs for the group. According to the BBC the most successful arm of the U.S. Iraq mission is the current effect the “Awakening” councils — ex-Sunni militants now fighting alongside the U.S. — are having in clearing “Al Qaeda inspired” foreign militants out of central Iraq.

As much as it pains me to say: the current Al Qaeda PR drive; two releases in as many days from Al Qaeda’s leader Osama Bin Laden, is a sign that the U.S. led War on Terror is finally making some gains against the group, which is clearly becoming desperate for recruits in Iraq.

It is undoubted that the U.S. has international support in its war with Al Qaeda, in fact it is pretty much a war between the Western world and Al Qaeda, in which only a few countries are fighting it with their military.

The Palestinian’s best chance of obtaining their own state is to gain the widest possible level of international support in that aim. Any bond between their cause and that of Al Qaeda will give them absolutely no chance of achieving that, and will actually increase support for Israel’s brutal military actions, and strangulation of Gaza in every way imaginable. I personally think Bin laden’s release requires a response from the Palestinian groups, especially Hamas, publicly distancing themselves from Al Qaeda.

see

Israel Strangling the Life Out of Gaza By Liam Bailey

Bailey-Liam

UK National Security Strategy Goes Down a Storm By Liam Bailey

Liam

By Liam Bailey
featured writer
Dandelion Salad

The Bailey Mail
March 21, 2008

2008-03-19 **opinion**

U.K. Prime Minster Gordon Brown unveiled the “National security Strategy” for Britain, March 19, some of it isn’t too bad, but there are a few measures that are down-right ludicrous. Like Brown’s plan to send a 1000 member task-force of Police, emergency services, and judges to go to trouble spots around the world; to help failing states and countries emerging from conflict.Can you imagine the tribal elders, responsible for law-making and authority of their respective villages and clans in Afghanistan or Somalia, stepping down and allowing British judges — which would no doubt gain the name of infidels — take over control of their clans and villages?

And how can a team of British police hope to achieve anything in such places when the British and US military couldn’t? It would be funny if it wasn’t so tragic. Plans like that are reminiscent of the Blair idealism that has left us with troops still fighting in two wars. In fact it’s worse because it’s half-hearted:

When something goes wrong in a country and it leads to massive ethnic cleansing and such like in Kosovo in the 90’s and Sudan today, you have to either decide: right we will intervene, and go in determined and clear of your objectives, or: right, we aren’t going to intervene and sit back and let it happen. You certainly don’t send a small team of policemen and judges — especially in the current climate of resentment for the UK, which is now seen as the puppet government for US imperialism.

The Brown proposals I agree with are raising the number of emergency services staff to 4000, setting up a £20million fund to assist military personnel and their families to buy houses, and re-assessing the role of our reserve forces like the Territorial Army, and bringing their role into the twentieth century.

Brown also dished out his usual amount of buzz-word-filled whatever the public wants to hear; promising greater transparency of the Intelligence Services, and that the Intelligence and Security Commission’s role would become more like that of the House of Commons select committee, holding its meetings in public rather than private. That is something that I can’t ever see happening, and if it does the discussions will also be selected and no secrets will be revealed. As World War II proved, secrets are necessary to protect a country.

Brown is saying all the right things to keep the voters sweet in the run up to the next British General Election, and as usual his plans were attacked in good old election rivalry style. Conservative Leader David Cameron said it “sounded more like a list than a strategy” and raised the need for a similar body to the United States National Security Council to set strategies and ensure they are enacted.

Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg said Brown’s proposal was more like an assessment of what threats exist than a strategy on how to deal with them, calling on Brown to announce a “new full strategic defence review for our defence capabilities for today and the years ahead.”

see

Brown unveils civil defence plan + ‘Dads’ Army’ to protect against security threats

William Shoots Himself in The Head & Goes For Steak by William Mac

Put young children on DNA list, urge UK police

Iraq Foreign Minister Calls British Troops Back Into Basra By Liam Bailey