Israel - Mass Killing No Massacre?

It will come as a surprise to some people to learn that I was appalled at the recent fatal shootings of 60 Palestinians by the Israeli Defence Force (IDF), and the more than 2,700 who were shot and wounded. The IDF have said that their response to the mass Palestinian  demonstration was proportionate to the threat they faced, and all shootings were "surgical". Plenty of surgery was needed in Gaza's City Hospital:
 "Gaza City’s Shifa Hospital received 284 injured people Friday, the majority with bullet injuries, said spokesman Ayman Sahbani. He said 70 were under the age of 18 and 11 were women."
This does not sound like surgical shooting to me; indeed, it sounds as if the IDF soldiers lost their heads and shot indiscriminately. The Israelis seem incapable of seeing how their heavy-handed reactions to Palestinian attacks bring international condemnation not just from their enemies, but, increasingly often, from their friends and from independents like me. I totally endorse criticism from Amnesty International, Save the Children and other NGOs on this issue and believe that an independent international inquiry is needed. As Amnesty says:
"While some protestors may have engaged in some form of violence, this still does not justify the use of live ammunition.Under international law, firearms can only be used to protect against an imminent threat of death or serious injury.”
At this point, anti-Zionists who have read my previous blogs on the Palestinian/Israeli conflict will be saying: "At last! He's seen the light! He's on our side now!".
Well, no. Sorry to disappoint, but I remain on the fence, because I believe this issue needs less emotion and more analysis. Last night's "Question Time"  on the BBC was a good example of raging emotional discussion, with pro-Palestinians and pro-Israelis haranguing and interrupting each other. The debate didn't get out of control, but it could have done, with neither side attempting to understand the other.
And there was something that everyone on the programme and everyone else in the media missed. No-one questioned the role of Hamas, who the IDF blamed for the violence and mass shooting. That might or might not have happened, and it is for a future inquiry to find out.
What no-one has said, or is saying, is that these killings represent a huge propaganda victory for Hamas. It is a standard tactic of guerilla organisations to provoke occupying powers into committing atrocities. It was used by Soviet partisans in occupied Russia during WW2, by the FLN in Algeria against the French during the War of Independence, the IRA after Bloody Sunday and Hamas, it seems to me, are using it now. Hamas knew, I believe, that any Israeli response would be excessive and that is exactly what happened. If Hamas were concerned about their own people, they could have stopped, or actively tried to discourage, the protests. They did not, the IDF have acted predictably, with clumsy excess, and Hamas have profited massively from their mistakes.
I look forward to the findings of any international inquiry, which I believe will find both sides at fault. Having said that, of course, neither side will accept the findings of the inquiry, and the conflict will continue.

Anjem Choudary - an Ominous Silence

After his conviction on September 6, 2016, we have been spared the bombast of Anjem Choudary, pictured above. In case forgotten, let's remind ourselves why he was sent to prison for five and a half years. Choudary was charged with one offence under section 12 of the 2000 Terrorism Act for inviting support of a proscribed organisation, namely Islamic State, between June 2014 and March 2015. In short, he swore an oath of loyalty to Daesh, aka ISIS. He is currently held in HMP Frankland, County Durham.
When I first learned of his conviction, I admit to having been elated. At last, I thought, a troublemaking fanatic had been placed where he could do no harm. It did not take long for my elation to turn to bafflement. The more I thought about it, the more it did not make sense. The authorities had been trying to nab Chaudary for years, and yet failed to pin anything on him.  He is a trained solicitor who knows how to stay within the law.Why then did he do something so blatantly illegal that it would automatically lead to a conviction? Had he suddenly suffered an attack of stupidity? 
I do not believe that Chaudary let his guard down. I think that he knew what he was doing, although my guess of his intent is just that - a guess.
Before I discuss my theory, I think we should remind ourselves what Choudary was up to before he made his apparent blunder. Before he became an Islamist, Chaudary was a bit of a lad, as we know. He then encountered Omar Bakri Mohammed, who converted him to Islamist radicalism, and co-founded al- Muhajiroun. 
He was a vociferous critic of the UK's involvement in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Besides this, he praised those responsible for the 9/11 and 7/7 attacks, and he refused to condemn the killers of Lee Rigby., saying:
 "I'm not in the business of condemnation or condoning. I think if anyone needs to be condemned it is the British government and their foreign policy"
According to Chaudary, one of the two killers, Michael Adebolajo, who he knew personally, was a "nice man".
He regularly called for  the implementation of Sharia law throughout the UK.  He marched in protest at the Danish cartoons controversy, following which he was prosecuted for organising an unlawful demonstration. During a protest outside Westminster Cathedral in 2006, Choudary even  told demonstrators that the Pope should be executed for insulting Islam. In 2010, he was fined for burning poppies on Armistice Day.
Because of his legal training, Choudary evaded prosecution on any serious charge. He also showed himself to be adept at using the media. As Nesrine Malik says in The Guardian:
"The first time I encountered Anjem Choudary in real life, I was struck by one thing: how good he was at creating a spectacle and attracting attention, given his own lack of importance. He knew how to play a media that was begging to be played. He gave them what they wanted – a show".
He was a regular on news programmes, "The Big Questions" and Fox News in the USA. On Fox News, one presenter called him a "sick son of a bitch" and cut him off. All this was grist to the mill for Choudary, who loved a platform for controversy and winding up opponents and critics - even fellow Muslims. Far less newsworthy, still less mentioned, was the fact that most Muslims deplored Choudary's antics and condemned him. As Nesrine Malik says:
"It doesn’t feel gracious to say this, but we told you so. Muslim journalists and activists spent years tearing their hair out in frustration at the platform Choudary was given. Many spoke out against this disproportionate exposure and boycotted shows he was invited on. In 2010 Mehdi Hasan condemned a “sensationalist and irresponsible media” that had been “deeply complicit in the rise and rise of this fanatic”.
Since his conviction, of course, he has been silenced. But it would be a mistake to think that Mr Choudary has been squashed. I believe that he deliberately broke the law, hoping to be imprisoned, for two reasons:
1. He wished to become acquainted with de-radicalisation techniques, to see if he could devise counter techniques for imprisoned Jihadis.
2. Choudary knew that ISIS/Daesh began in prison in post-invasion Iraq - Camp Bucca to be exact. Two years ago, there was talk of moving all Islamic radicals to a single prison here in the UK. Choudary might have liked that idea, hoping to create a British version of ISIS/Daesh in the same way as the evil Iraqi version.
Fanciful? maybe, but not impossible.
In any case, it is a fact that Choudary has been moved to a special unit in HMP Frankland for hardened Jihadis. As "The Telegraph" says:
"Anjem Choudary has reportedly become the first known Islamist to be moved to a “separation centre” at HMP Frankland in County Durham...The centres, also known as “jihadi jails”, were proposed after a review into prison extremism recommended preachers and terrorists who tried to convert or incite others should be kept separate from mainstream prisoners."
Well, I wasn't too far wrong. The unit in HMP Frankland will be one of three such units in UK prisons. Choudary, however, will not be in there for very much longer. He has been astute enough to behave in prison, and could be eligible for early release. As soon as this coming December, we could be dealing with a newly released prison-smart Anjem Choudary. He will be difficult to ignore, and will have much to say about life in prison. The ominous silence will be broken. 

Alfie Evans - a battle with no possible winners

The long, convoluted saga of Alfie Evans has finally reached its sad, but scarcely unexpected, conclusion. The constant press coverage of the lengthy series of court cases as far as the UK Supreme Court and the European Court of Human Rights has ensured that very few people in the UK can be unaware of his parents' struggle to be allowed to take him abroad for treatment.

At the core of the dispute was the medical profession's view that, not only was Alfie's condition incurable, but that to move him abroad was likely to cause the little boy unnecessary suffering for no possible gain. The parents, on the other hand, maintained their own conviction that he could be helped. I'm sure that we can all understand their desperation.

Many people demanded that the hospital and the courts should 'do the right thing' and allow the parents to take him abroad, but the question the courts had to deal with was not what was best for the parents, but what was best for the little boy, even if that meant making a decision that was contrary to the parents' wishes. Children are not the property of their parents but are individual, though immature, human beings in their own right, which is why the final decision was not the parents to make.

The deliberations of the doctors and courts must have been heart-rending; any suggestion that these devoted parents were hitting a brick wall of medical and legal officialdom is wholly misplaced. Medical professionals are often deeply moved, upset or, on occasion, traumatised when patients die, and such emotional responses tend to increase the younger the patient is. I've no doubt that the courts found it difficult as well.

My sympathy for the parents was severely tested when we heard the news that their lawyers from the Christian Legal Centre were talking about taking out a private prosecution against three doctors for conspiracy to murder. According to the Liverpool Echo, this legal centre is a branch of Christian Concern, an anti-abortion organisation which says “divorce, homosexuality and transsexualism are the three most significant challenges to God’s pattern for family in today’s society.” They are a group that very much has an agenda of its own and were using this case to further it.

Then we have the phenomenon of Alfie's Army, a large, vociferous group of supporters who demonstrated outside the hospital demanding Alfie be allowed to go to Italy. Staff received abuse, personal threats, and even threats to burn down Alder Hey Hospital. As a result, staff were warned to hide their uniforms and ID badges when in public. Such behaviour is both disgraceful and unforgivable, and I hope police IT experts are trying to trace those responsible.

I read today that it is intended to 'light up the sky for Alfie' in Southport in a few days' time. This has been enthusiastically received by some, while others, myself included, have pointed out that sending up balloons and lanterns can kill wildlife and cause fires when they come back down to earth. Others have replied that it's just for one day, so presumably that's all right then. One young woman became abusive while saying that she simply wanted to show respect - the irony was completely lost on her.

Sadly, on the news today I heard that several children had been among among the 25 people in Afghanistan killed by a suicide bomber. I also learnt today that, on average, in every week in the UK 50 children under a year old die in England and Wales*. Why are there no ceremonies to mark the deaths of all those lost children? Their parents' grief will be no less.

The story of Alfie has certainly provoked a huge emotional response in the country. There's no doubt it's an unusual case, very newsworthy with a series of dramatic court cases, appeals to the Pope, and a stream of photographs for the public. I don't blame the parents for using the media to try to achieve their goal with Alfie, but in the process something of a monster was created. Abuse has been heaped upon NHS staff and upon people who reasonably object to a commemoration that might endanger wildlife. It seems that Alfie's Army, having got the bit between their collective teeth, are determined to let nothing impede them. They talk about paying respect to Alfie, but show none to anyone who dares have a different opinion.

Whatever our views on what should or should not have happened, I think all reasonable people can understand the parents' anguish, and deplore the disgraceful treatment of medical staff by certain intolerant 'supporters' of Alfie. The parents dissociated themselves from the worst of the behaviour, even a fortnight ago urging Alfie's Army to stop protesting outside Alder Hey Hospital. Unfortunately, the genie was well out of the bottle by then.

One thing is certain: Alfie's parents left absolutely no stone unturned in their quest to achieve what they considered was right for their son. That they did not succeed was definitely not through any lack of effort in their part. I hope the fact that they did their absolute best for him provides them with a degree of comfort as they grieve.

* Source: Office of National Statistics.