South Africa – Breaking News

In Israel, some are more equal than others

By Ismail Patel

Why should Israel not be allowed to define itself as a Jewish state? Because to do so is to deny millions of indigenous Arabs their historic and legal rights to their homeland; a land they inhabited long before Israel was created the first time round, for the centuries between that and its recreation in its present form as a racist colonial state, in which all non-Jews, despite their large numbers, are treated as second class citizens who’s right to exist on the land is always brought into question.

For any state to define itself on religious grounds, it must have an overwhelming majority who accede to that religion. Thus, the United Kingdom is a Christian state, while Nigeria cannot define itself as either Christian or Muslim. Saudi Arabia has a majority Muslim population, as does Iran, and the other states quoted by Mr Saks who define themselves on religious ground. The rights that minorities enjoy are really a reflection on the democratic values of the given state.

Israel cannot justifiably draw a parallel between it and these states for many reasons. Firstly, Israel claims to be a beacon of democracy, with equal rights for all its citizens. Yet quarter of its non Jewish Arab population is treated as anything but equals, and it further occupies the land of another four million Arab Palestinians, who are treated with callous cruelty.

Mr Saks quotes a list of rules and regulations which have been used for decades to portray an Israel that is just and reasonable to the rest of the world. All of Israel’s citizens have access to its lands? Tell that to the Arab Jerusalemites who’s city (East Jerusalem) was illegally annexes by Israel following the 1967 war. These 200,000 people live in cramped and squalid conditions due to the refusal by the state of Israel to grant any consents for planning resulting in massive overcrowding and eventually, the illegal buildings of homes which Israeli bulldozers then come to destroy.

Read More »In Isarael some are more equal than others

Home Office threat levels are absurd abstractions of no help to anyone except the security lobby raising cash through fear

By Simon Jenkins

(source: The Guardian)

In case you missed it, since Monday an “Irish-related” attack on Britain has been “a strong possibility”. At the same time, an al-Qaida attack is “highly likely” and “only a matter of time”. This presumably means one will occur – though, since August 2006, when this alarmist language was first to put us on continuous alert, terrorism has been like mad flu disease, afflicting Whitehall but strangely absent from the nation at large.

I hesitate to tempt fate, but this dog’s dinner of nouns and qualifiers cannot mean anything to the general public. Rather than describing a menace to the British state, the words are more a comment on English teaching in schools. They are verbal garbage, reflecting a habit of bureaucratic mind and relieving public services – airport security, railway guards, traffic police – of the need for courtesy. They just want to keep the public scared and paying taxes.

Travelling on a First Great Western train nowadays is like entering Guantánamo – a cacophony of repetitive announcements telling passengers to protect their belongings at all times and inform the police if they see anything suspicious. Likewise the fatuous frisking of old ladies at airports, the half-hearted searching of bags in shops, the reams of safety literature pouring from the nation’s printers. It is the white noise of state fear.

Nothing is as absurd as Home Office “threat levels”. They purport to grade the risk of something called an “attack”. This is not defined, but graces a crime with the glamour of a soldierly act. It grants terrorism political status and thus dusts the security industry with the glory of defending the realm.

Above all the threat must be kept alive, sorted into classes of low, moderate, substantial, severe and critical. We are currently at severe. What regius professor of English chose these words? I would put severe below substantial, the word being a strengthener of very, while substantial has substance. But I assume Whitehall has done focus groups and sweat tests. Substantial was perhaps greeted with a shrug, while severe brought on the shakes. As for critical – mujahideen “expected imminently” to hurl bombs down Oxford Street – it is surely the most devalued word in the OED.

Read More »Be very afraid “ we are being fleeced by purveyors of fear