GUEST BLOG: Leslie Bravery – Reason or endless war?

On Sunday, 1 March 2015, TVNZ issued a Press Release of an interview with New Zealand Prime Minister John Key, in which the main subject concerned the government’s decision to send New Zealand troops to Iraq to assist the fight against ISIL. Corin Dann asked John Key “. . . did you consider, when you made that decision, that going there – given the track record of Western intervention in the Middle East – and the very fact that this could radicalise people more by us going there could make the risk greater?” John Key had previously stated that “there’s some risk with these soldiers that go off to train the Iraqi forces, but there is more risk to everyday New Zealanders by a stronger ISIL.” The PM maintained that this was because some of the foreigners fighting with ISIL would return to their countries and present a “tremendous risk”. Corin asked Key if any of those returning foreign fighters had, to date, been responsible for any terrorist attacks anywhere? Key started talking evasively about fighters from Malaysia and Indonesia and Corin asked him “but you are talking about risk to New Zealanders. I mean, are there any foreign fighters that have returned to New Zealand? Are there any risks being posed by them?” Again, the Prime Minister was evasive – “foreign fighters – well, they’re New Zealanders who are part of the foreign fighting group over . . .” Corin interrupted him to ask pointedly “but none of them have returned to New Zealand?” John Key replied “no, I don’t think so at this point. But there are some that will inevitably come back, or try and come back.”

Distrust of the law

Corin asked John, “but you would arrest them, presumably, as soon as they came back?” Key’s reply was strangely guarded, “that’s an interesting point about what the law ultimately allows us to do. But, yes, you know, if we could, of course we would. But that would be, you know, subjected to laws.” Oh dear how inconvenient, the law! Key’s response reminded us of Corin’s earlier question as to whether Key had considered the track record of Western intervention in the Middle East when he made the decision to send troops to Iraq. The present tragedy of Iraq began with the lawless invasion and ruin of that country based on lies concocted by the Western allies. Key’s unease with honesty and due process became even clearer when Corin asked him “why don’t we just arrest them?” The Prime Minister replied, “Yeah, okay, so without breaching some of the things that we’re doing, and all of that, yes, there would be a lot of things we could point to which you could take to a court of law. But, of course, once you get in front of a court of law, people say, ‘Oh, well, you’re misinterpreting my comments. I didn’t really mean it. I was kidding around’.” The snooping Five-Eyes’ need to erode civil liberties seems to have taken charge of Key’s senses. The fact that accused individuals have the right to defend themselves in a court of law, it seems, is considered an inconvenience that should be avoided in the interests of greater surveillance and control of our daily lives.

Spying for its own sake?

The Prime Minister showed even more distrust in due process, saying “ . . . if we believed we could get them in front of the courts, and the courts would actually get those charges to stick.” That sounds like an admission that there would most likely always be a lack of evidence – which suggests that the spymasters and their subservient politicians are not being altogether straight with us. Key went on to tell us “these people are on watch lists and being observed” – yet he has to admit to doubting that there would ever be sufficient evidence? He has good reason, whether he knows it or not. What were our security services doing when French government terrorists transported dangerous explosives from Northland to Auckland to blow up the Rainbow Warrior with such deadly effect? Answer – mindlessly looking in the wrong direction as a result of an ideologically narrow world view.

Circumlocution

When Corin suggested that ISIL was indeed an extreme form of Islam, Key’s choice of language in response seemed somewhat unclear: “. . . if you spoke to someone like the UAE Foreign Minister, he would say the reason that ISIL can point to any kind of belief of the things they have, go back to one particular prophet back in 1200, and basically they say that is not a legitimate teaching of the Koran.” Who is the “one particular prophet” to whom Key refers? The Prophet Muhammad died in 632. Key’s understanding and world view appear to be confined within the US-led Western alliance’s assumptions of grand power politics and hegemony. The politicians that serve it appear ignorant of the nature of the Islamic State, which will certainly make coping with the situation so much more difficult. As Graeme Wood remarks in his article What ISIS really wants:

“The reality is that the Islamic State is Islamic. Very Islamic. Yes, it has attracted psychopaths and adventure seekers, drawn largely from the disaffected populations of the Middle East and Europe. But the religion preached by its most ardent followers derives from coherent and even learned interpretations of Islam. Virtually every major decision and law promulgated by the Islamic State adheres to what it calls, in its press and pronouncements, and on its billboards, license plates, stationery, and coins, ‘the Prophetic methodology,’ which means following the prophecy and example of Muhammad, in punctilious detail.”

Most Muslims reject the Islamic State but, as Graeme Wood puts it, “We’ll need to get acquainted with the Islamic State’s intellectual genealogy if we are to react in a way that will not strengthen it, but instead help it self-immolate in its own excessive zeal.” The Western alliance has engaged in foreign wars almost continuously since 1945 and the highly-profitable arms trade continues to benefit from the West’s support for repressive regimes. As the dedicated Shakespearian actor, Mark Rylance, has asked:

“We don’t tolerate violent solutions in our relationships, our families, our workplaces, our neighbourhoods, why do we allow our politicians to behave with such violence in the world of International relations?” stopwar.org.uk

If our leaders fail to educate themselves and show more responsibility, we face the grim prospect of more of the same. It’s time to regain respect for the individual – stop the snooping – replace failed power politics with reason – stop meddling in the affairs of others.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Life under Israeli military occupation (3)
Every area of Israeli-Occupied Palestinian territory experiences arbitrary restrictions of movement imposed by the Israeli Army. The lack of freedom of movement is the frustrating and humiliating background to daily life for the Palestinian people, whose suffering includes a variety of human rights abuses, from night home invasions to wanton acts of agricultural and economic sabotage. The Israeli Occupation Army enforces a permit system for the benefit of settlers that determines where Palestinians may live in their own land.

Agricultural and economic sabotage

Both the Israeli Army and illegal (according to international law) settlers terrorise Palestinian farmers, often preventing them from working their land as well as frequently uprooting or setting fire to Palestinian olive trees and bulldozing their crops. The United Nations[4] (UN Security Council Resolution 465)[5] has repeatedly upheld the view that Israel’s construction of settlements constitutes violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention[6]. The International Court of Justice[7] see also summary[8] says these settlements are illegal and no foreign governments support Israel’s settlements. The aim of the settlements is both to take land and resources from the local people and to bring pressure to bear on them to leave. On 21 January 2015, the newspaper Falesteen reported that the Israeli Occupation settlement of Kiryat Arba in Hebron had demanded the equivalent of US$22,359 in property ‘taxes’ from a Palestinian farmer, farmer, Al-Ja’bari, for his nearby house and farmland.[15]
[4]
[5]
[6] 
[7] 
[8] 
[15] 

Leslie Bravery is a Londoner with vivid World War Two memories of the Nazi blitz on his home town. In 1947/1948 His father explained to him what was happening to the Palestinians thus: “Any ideology or political movement that creates refugees in the process of realising its ambitions must be inhuman and should be opposed and condemned as unacceptable.” What followed confirmed this assessment of the Zionist entity a hundredfold. Now a retired flamenco guitarist, with a lifelong interest in the tragedy of what happened to the Palestinian people, he tries to publicise their plight. Because the daily injustices they suffer barely get a mention in the mainstream news media, Leslie edits/compiles a daily newsletter, In Occupied Palestine, for the Palestine Human Rights Campaign. These days, to preserve his sanity, he enjoys taking part in a drama group whenever possible!