Hamas Strategy and The New Front Line in the UK

 Well, if my analysis of Hamas strategy in my post of Friday 13th is correct, the Hamas planning staff must be smirking with satisfaction at the present situation in Gaza. Israel, as Hamas would have expected, has launched a ferocious bombing campaign that is taking a terrible toll on innocent civilians. Current UN figures put the Gaza casualty rate at 5,087. Israel, as expected, asserts that they are launching "surgical strikes" - viewers of the plight of Gaza civilians, especially in the hospitals, understandably dismiss this. There is now worldwide protest, spearheaded by Palestinians and their allies abroad, against Israel's actions - strangely, I have noted no call for Hamas to be held to account for the October 7th atrocities, or for the release of Israeli hostages.

All this is working in Hamas's favour. The spotlight of blame has moved away from them decisively. Astutely, they have released several hostages and appear to be wanting to present themselves to the world as rational beings. But they have released only a few hostages. They have not been cowed into ending missile launches, and appear unmoved by the all-too-real possibility of an Israeli invasion. It's thought that the USA , the UK and other allies of Israel are acting as a restraining influence. This is denying Hamas what I believe to be their main war aim - to entice the IDF into a costly and bloody urban struggle, rather like the Battle of Stalingrad. The difference, of course, will be that Hamas, unlike the Red Army defenders of Stalingrad, can fade away into the civilian population after inflicting as many Israeli casualties as possible. They will return, I believe, when they have recruited a new generation of fighters, embittered by the present Israeli onslaught, and recommence the war.

Should the Israelis not invade, however unlikely that is, Hamas will consider it a victory. They will recruit more combatants to their ranks and plan for another attack. No wonder, then, that (assuming I'm right) Hamas strategists are pleased with the results of their aggression on October 7th.

But there is another area where Hamas is seeing progress and where they have much to be pleased about. It is happening here in the UK.

The first triumph for Hamas here is the rise of anti-Semitism since October 7th. The Community Security Trust (CST) has logged  89 incidents that it classed as "anti-Jewish hate" from 7-10 October. Sky News wrote on 12th October:

"This was an increase of 324% compared to the 21 antisemitic incidents recorded over the same period last year, the group (CST) said. The incidents included six assaults, three instances of damage to Jewish property, 66 related to abusive behaviour and 22 took place online".

It's got worse since the 12th. Since then, the pace and number of the attacks has grown. Some Jewish schools have closed, many Jews are frightened to walk the streets and, says The Guardian:

"...the Metropolitan police said 75 antisemitic offences occurred from 30 September to 13 October this year, while 12 were recorded in the same period in 2022. Incidents reported to police, which may include non-crimes, increased sevenfold year on year, from 14 to 105".

Besides this, there has been a rise in Islamophobic violence. Reuters comment, noting the rise in violence:

"London police said on Friday they had recorded a 1,353% increase in antisemitic offences this month compared to the same period last year, while Islamophobic offences were up 140% in the wake of the attack by Hamas on Israel".

An example of the Islamophobic/anti-Palestinian backlash was noted by the BBC on the 20th:

"Hello, do you do takeaway?
"OK. I'll come over and take away your life."
This is the shocking kind of conversation that is repeatedly taking place at Shakeshuka - a Palestinian takeaway in London - amid a wave of abuse being suffered by Islamic communities in the capital.
A barrage of threatening calls has been sparked by the recent surge in violence in the Middle East.
Threats have left some staff too frightened to go into work, and the establishment has been forced to make significant changes in its operations".

Hamas have not commented on the rise in communal hatreds in this country (and abroad), but they must be pleased how what they see as their war is having detrimental effects on daily life in countries that support Israel. In fact, I think they would welcome it getting worse. It can only benefit them politically. 

But the present conflict benefits certain political groups here, also...

Taking advantage of the Gaza conflict to gain political advantage is the patron saint of Brexit, our old pal, Nigel Farage. Speaking for the far Right-but-not-fascist political element, he, and other "commentators" on GB News and elsewhere, have sided with Israel. Although I suspect that there are anti-Semites among this type, Farage has seized the opportunity to arouse fears of a refugee influx from Gaza. Deriding Hamza Yousaf's call for Palestinian refugees to be admitted to the UK, Farage writes, on the GB News website:

"Now I'm going to give you some stats from Denmark that are very shocking. In 1992, Denmark gave refuge to 321 Palestinians. By 2019, the government produced results for what had happened to them.
64% of those that have been given refuge had obtained criminal records. 34% of their children had obtained criminal records. And bear in mind, many of the children hadn't yet grown up and the vast majority were living on welfare".

A more blatant example of how to whip up hatred would be hard to find. As far as I know, the vast majority of Palestinians living in Britain are law-abiding UK citizens. There is, of course, a pro-Hamas element that scream hate slogans on pro-Palestinian marches and are undoubtedly involved in anti-Semitic attacks, but Farage's attempt to smear all Palestinian refugees is deplorable, if unsurprising. But there are other far right groups active on this front...

The British extreme right has been divided by this, and previous, Gaza conflicts. Put simply, they hate Jews and Muslims in equal measure, and struggle to decide whose side they are on. This happens abroad as well. I remember, some years ago in Berlin, neo-Nazis on a Gaza march attacked a group of anti-Zionist Jews. As Searchlight Magazine says: 

"A broad swathe of extremists, ranging from Nigel Farage to EDL founder ‘Tommy Robinson’, have tried to exploit the situation to promote Islamophobia.
At the opposite pole are some of Britain’s old-school nazis including Patriotic Alternative leader Mark Collett, who have been as antisemitic as they dare to be without breaking either the Public Order Act or the Terrorism Act.
And some racists including former BNP führer Nick Griffin have tried to pitch themselves somewhere between Robinson and Collett, taking advantage of the slaughter to stir up racial and religious hatred in all directions, while pretending that they are ‘neutral’ towards Middle East politics".

Mark Collett (seen above) might almost be regarded as the head of Hamas UK in some of his recorded utterances. In one of his blurbs on Telegram, he says:

“In the face of Zionist terror the Palestinians in Gaza are standing firm. …How any nationalist can watch this unfolding and not at the very least respect those brave souls is beyond me.”

This would seem to breach the provisions of the Terrorism Act, and, as I know very well how Collett's kindred spirits in Patriotic Alternative (PA) share his views, I believe that PA members will be active in the anti-Semitic attacks that now blight our country.

All told, then, Hamas can have great cause for satisfaction. They have perpetrated the worst massacre of Jews since the Holocaust, provoked an Israeli retaliation so ferocious that it has drawn widespread international condemnation and, as I hope to have made clear, caused internal conflict in the lands of Israel's friends. Like I said, Hamas strategists must be smirking.

I have aimed here to provide an analysis of Hamas strategic thinking. I have sought to be objective and analytical. I apologise if I seem indifferent to these terrible events. 

"The Reckoning" - A Personal View

 

"The Reckoning", which is a four-part TV series about the late and unlamented Jimmy Savile, played by Steve Coogan, both of whom are seen above, concludes on BBC 1 tomorrow night. It has received a mixed reaction from the media, and I shall be drawing on two reviews, one from The Guardian and the other from The Independent to provide insight. I shall begin, however, by relating a personal experience that shows how much Savile was part of our national life for many years before he died.

In the very early 90s, I was teaching a Year 5 class at a school in Liverpool. Two very nice young girls wanted to send a fan letter to Sting (I forget why). Nowadays, I could find contact details on the internet, but in those days it was next to impossible to find contact details of that kind. Instead, I suggested to the girls that we could write to Jim'll Fix It, asking Savile to pass the letter on to Sting. We did, first receiving a reply from the BBC, and then one from Sting's PA, promising to ask Sting to write back to them upon his return to the UK (Sting never did write back). 

I think this illustrates the widespread trust that existed for JS at that time. Fortunately for the girls, they never met the old roue, but, after Savile was exposed as the pervert that he was, years later, I breathed a huge sigh of relief. The two girls involved will now be in their 40s, but were I  to meet them again, I would offer them an apology. Still, my story, insignificant as it is, is yet another example of how JS hoodwinked the vast majority of us, from me, all the way up to Margaret Thatcher and The Pope. 

So how did Savile do it? "The Reckoning" sets out to answer that, but has drawn criticism from before, and during screening. As we all knew, this was a highly sensitive subject, which promised to reawaken victim trauma and public revulsion at Savile's vile crimes. Yet, as The Independent says:

"... despite the obvious futility and derangement of the undertaking, BBC One has given it a go anyway... The trauma of Savile is still fresh for many of his victims, who have only had since his death in 2011 to process it openly. (It should be noted that several of them collaborate on this show and appear as talking heads.) But, more strikingly, how can you turn the story of Savile... into entertainment?

Concern for the victims in understandable, but, having watched the series, I would not class it as entertainment. After all, we watch films about wartime, based on fact, that are far more gruesome than "The Reckoning". Admittedly, there have been a number of hard-hitting documentaries made about this issue, but sometimes, dramatization can have greater impact. There are problems with that process, but we'll come to that.

The Independent goes on to say that the whole programme is founded upon the strength of Savile's charisma, which reduces all other characters in the drama to gullible dupes, apart from a perceptive view:

"In the end, it is Coogan (often a magnetic performer himself) as Savile, a whirlwind of malign glamour, that holds the eye".

I find this rather a puzzling criticism to make. After all, JS is the central character, and as Steve Coogan said about the divisive reception to the programme in "Leeds Live":

"I think that's because Jimmy Savile played a trick on the entire nation so there’s a real feeling of antagonism about it. But you need to look at someone like that to understand how they’re able to operate and to prevent it happening again. If you sweep it under the carpet and just don’t talk about it anymore, then those people are destined to come back."

And I support that; if war films remind us how terrible war is, "The Reckoning" reminds us to be alert for the return of another Savile (which God forbid).

Anyone who has not watched the programmes will naturally be concerned about how Savile's crimes are portrayed. We are dealing here with sexual abuse of all kinds, from indecent exposure to rape. However, as The Guardian says (and I agree): 

"The scenes in which he terrorises, assaults or rapes girls, young women and occasionally young men – at home, in clubs, in hospitals, anywhere – are handled very well. I don’t think I have seen many dramas that evoke that particular terror so well..".

The Guardian, though, finds that the series offers no comprehensive analysis or convincing explanation for why Savile committed his crimes. It does tentatively, and with no evidence, suggest that he felt rejected as a child by his mother - "The Duchess". The Guardian suggests that more attention should have been given:

"..to the failures of NHS staff to protect their patients at the various hospitals Savile was allowed unfettered access to, to editors caving in to pressures to shut down a Fleet Street exposé, and the many other failings by individuals and institutions.."

All these were deplorable failures, and the BBC does get off rather lightly, but dramatization can only cover so much. The Reckoning, to be fair, at least points to the need to ask further questions, as well as call for vigilance.

I do have one criticism of the programme, though...

The young lady in the photo was named Claire McAlpine. She was a regular attender of Top of the Pops  broadcast audiences, Tragically, she died from an overdose in March 1971, just 15 years old. She had been seen entering Savile's BBC dressing room more than once and had written in her diary about having sex with a presenter in a hotel. Savile was questioned after her mother discovered what had happened. True to form, he denied everything, even though a photo was produced that showed him with Claire - with his hand on the girl's bottom.

Curiously - at least to me - Claire's case is not portrayed factually in "The Reckoning". Instead, a character called Sara, a 15-year old Asian girl, played by the actress, Tia Dutt, seen below, echoes Claire's story. Sara is driven to suicide by overdose, like Claire McAlpine.

For "dramatic purposes", the BBC, when probed by the Daily Mail, decided to use the character of Sara to symbolise all of Saville's victims from his Top of the Pops days: A BBC spokesman insisted: 

'Sara is not Claire McAlpine. We know many of Savile's victims were driven to thoughts of suicide and the drama has a duty to reflect the impact of his abuse in full."

This was not accepted by businesswoman Kelly Gold, a friend of Claire McAlpine and who says that she herself was assaulted by Savile. Ms Gold says:

"I don't know why they changed Claire's character to be Asian. Also they said she left a suicide note but Claire actually left a diary, naming more than just Savile." (My italics - Blogmeister).

Mark Williams-Thomas, the investigator who blew the lid on Savile, remarked on the story:

 'It has made me very annoyed and has really undermined the integrity of the series...This massive deviation from a very important fact shows no sensitivity to Claire as a victim of abuse.'

Upon consideration, I have to agree with this point. I accept that there was a need for dramatization for artistic purposes and narrative pace, but I think that the late Claire McAlpine deserved recognition as Savile's only known fatality. This is no disrespect to the living victims, some of whom appear in the series.
 To conclude, I would refer the reader to a poll conducted about "The Reckoning" by Leeds Live. Leeds has good reason to feel sore about Savile, as Leeds Live says:  

"For many, the unmasking of Savile is still incredibly raw, particularly for those in Leeds where the former entertainer resided in Roundhay Park."

Leeds Live asked readers to vote on whether the BBC were right to screen "The Reckoning". They say:

" We’ve had an overwhelming response from our readers to the poll. Perhaps, surprising to some, 67 per cent of our audience feel the The Reckoning should have been made with 33 per cent feeling differently. These figures are correct at time of publication."

I can only end by saying that I found this programme of interest. Despite what The Independent and others say, I did gain fresh insight and food for thought. In fact, it confirmed my suspicion that Savile had been only too ready to use violence against his victims when he was young enough (there is an enjoyable scene in the final programme where a young nurse pushes the aging Savile out of her way and calls him a dirty old man). Altogether, this is a divisive programme, albeit with some fine acting, especially by Steve Coogan. This is a lame way to end, but I can only urge interested readers to watch "The Reckoning" and draw their own conclusions.

Hamas - a Provocation Too Far?

 

Like everyone else, I was surprised at the news that broke on Saturday. So much has happened in such a short time, that we've forgotten our initial shock. As Foreign Policy.com said:

"TEL AVIV, Israel—Israel is reeling from an unprecedented incursion of Hamas militants across the Gaza border early Saturday that killed at least 250 people and wounded more than 1,400, with the death toll expected to rise."

And it did. CBS News said yesterday: 

"As of Thursday afternoon, Israel's military said Hamas' attack killed more than 1,200 people, including at least 27 Americans, and left some 2,800 people wounded. At least 1,537 people, including 447 children, have been killed in Gaza by Israel's retaliatory strikes, the Gaza Ministry of Health said, adding that more than 6,000 others were wounded".

As expected, there has been justified international anger at the hideous atrocities committed by the Hamas terrorists, and now condemnation of Israeli retaliation. What has not happened is any analysis of what initiated this attack - and that, I believe, is the crucial aspect. Putting it simply: why did Hamas launch this attack, and why was it so brutal?

The answer, I believe, is that it is part of a strategy that I have detected in guerrilla/terrorist/resistance movements before. It is the use of provocation - the provocation by said movements against their stronger and/or occupying enemies. As I have said before, it goes back to the French occupation of Spain during the Napoleonic wars ("guerrilla" is a Spanish word). It involves attacks by the terrorists that sting their enemies into using excess force as retaliation, in order to alienate the civilian population. The retaliation, such as it is, will cause deaths to innocent and uninvolved civilians and thus lead to an increase of support for the guerrillas. In more recent times, it was used by Soviet partisans in "quiet" areas behind German lines in WW2. Since the war, it has been used extensively by liberation movements in post-colonial wars. The American bombing of North Viet-Nam, which strengthened support for the NVA/Viet Cong and Bloody Sunday (1972) which led to a huge increase in IRA recruitment are two examples. The Philippeville Massacre (1955), during the Algerian Civil War, saw the Algerian FLN slaughter 123 French civilians. In response, the French Army killed about 12 000 people, according to the FLN. Again, this led to an increase in recruitment and, like today, international concern and condemnation of America, Britain and France. Recently, we have seen Islamic terror organisations, including ISIS, using provocation in order to stir up Islamophobia, again, with the aim of recruiting alienated Muslims.

It hardly needs spelling out that this explains the latest Hamas action very clearly. Their atrocities against Israeli civilians, hideous as they are, I believe were part of the Hamas plan, despite their denials: As Channel Four reported:

"Challenged by Channel 4 News’ Cathy Newman that Hamas’s attacks on Israeli citizens were unprovoked, a spokesperson for the militant group said on Saturday that “we were never thinking to attack civilians”."

 This is euphemistically called being "economical with the truth". As Rajan Menon comments in The Guardian: 

"During one of my several trips to Israel, I visited Sderot, thanks to an Israeli friend who loved showing his country to non-Israelis... After Hamas’s 7 October attack on Israel, a horrifying video of Sderot emerged. Gunmen from Hamas... roamed its streets in pickup trucks and on foot. They had a common purpose of shooting anyone they encountered: pedestrians, people at a bus stop, motorists and motorcyclists".

We recoil with horror at these crimes, but we need to understand that this is all part of the Hamas strategy. The horrific nature of these events is bringing about a ferocious Israeli response - and Hamas wanted this, even though it led to the deaths of many of their own fighters. And, please note, these Hamas fighters were prepared to die, which bears out the view by Alexander Solzhenitsyn that men can only commit great acts of evil when they think they are doing good.

The next strategic aim of Hamas is to exploit the understandable Israeli assaults on Gaza. As reported this morning, the Israelis are giving innocent Gaza residents 24 hours to move to the south of the Gaza Strip. Significantly (to me), Hamas are telling these residents not to go. Of course not. If all non-combatants left, Hamas would be unable to blame the Israelis for the deaths of innocent civilians. Hamas has clearly been planning for this war for some time, and will have prepared defences, and defensive plans. Part of the planning is to cause massive civilian casualties in order to elicit widespread international condemnation. Besides this, Israeli bombing will have created huge areas of ruined buildings. As the Red Army showed in WW2, ruined buildings can make formidable fortresses, difficult to capture. I think Hamas are hoping to turn the defence of Gaza into one big battle of Stalingrad, making the Israelis pay a high price in both blood and prestige.

The inevitable civilian suffering of the impending Israeli invasion means nothing to Hamas. To them, as I have hopefully made clear, the suffering of the innocent is a great recruiting sergeant. More will be done, more will be said, and many more will have to die. It's only just begun. It could lead to a wider conflict, and prove to be a provocation too far. Not that Hamas will be too bothered about that. I am sure they have planned for it.

Laurence Fox - A Sign of the Tory Times

 

I intended to write a post about Laurence Fox, the sometime actor and now ex-GB News presenter shown in the photo above (the man in the picture, not the dog). As we know, Fox was been fired by GB News a week after he ranted against a female journalist, Ava Evans. His outburst sparked 9000 complaints to OFCOM and restarted the debate about misogyny in the UK. GB News, which has a number of presenters, who, like Fox are on the political Right, has sacked Fox after some apparent hesitation, aka an "investigation". They could hardly do otherwise. As Sky News said last week:

" Speaking on Dan Wootton Tonight on Tuesday, actor-turned-politician Laurence Fox made a series of remarks about Ava Evans, including: "Who would want to shag that?"

Fox received news of his sacking while under arrest, suspected of conspiring to vandalise ULEZ cameras. He expressed relief at being sacked, describing his erstwhile employers as "GB Joke". He expressed outrage at the fact that the police, who raided his house to arrest him, had looked at his children's I pads. He expressed no such outrage at the fact that Ava Evans has received threats from people who sympathise with him. Nor was he sorry that the presenter who interviewed him, Dan Wootton, had also been fired.

Not that Wootton deserves any sympathy. He seems to have been complicit in Fox's vile statements from the beginning. As the Evening Standard says: 

" Laurence Fox’s tweets last week showed that Wootton had been briefed on Fox’s plans to attack journalist Ava Evans over her comments on a men’s mental health minister. Wootton not only smirked, laughed and failed to counter Fox’s tirade of personal derogatory remarks but, according to GB News employees, ignored orders from producers delivered “increasingly frantically” over his earpiece to stop Fox, counter his claims and, eventually, to apologise to viewers after Fox had finished".

As a former GB News insider told the Standard: 

“Wootton thought he was untouchable... the more he got away with, the more he insisted on controlling everything. He’d squash you if you didn’t toe his line.”

As this included a diatribe against lockdowns on his first day to a lurid sex scandal being unpunished by his bosses at GB News, we can see why Wootton thought he could get away with what has happened over Fox. We can also see why he deserves little sympathy now.

According to my original intent, I should stop at this point, concluding that Fox and Wootton are two miscreants who overstepped the line and got what they deserved. I intended to, but another outlandish display of recent right-wing activity broadened the issue. This was the Conservative Party Conference in Manchester which, apart from Tory squabbling over HS2, saw an unprecedented outburst of right-wing populist activity - even to the presence of Nigel Farage. 

There was, for example, the astonishing speech by Liz Truss (wasn't she once prime minister?) that, even after the GB News scandal described above: 

“In my view, we need more economic journalism and we need more GB News,” Ms Truss said. “Challenging the orthodoxy, broadcasting common sense and transforming our media landscape. So long may it continue."

As well she might, for there is a Tory presence on GB News. Yahoo News says:

" According to the Register of Members' Financial Interests, 11 MPs have been paid to either present or appear on GB News shows since 2021. Some Tory MPs, such as Lee Anderson, Philip Davies and Jacob Rees-Mogg present shows on the network."

Esther McVey, married to Philip Davies, is another MP who presents a programme on this station. None of the Tory MPs named here have expressed any disapproval of Fox and Wootton. Caroline Nokes, chair of the Commons Women and Equalities Committee (CWEC) has said of the Tory/GB MPs:

"I think it’s a very odd relationship to be quite frank and I don’t go on any of their shows. From my perspective if you’re a Member of Parliament you have a day job to do, getting on with the work you have in the House of Commons and not swanning off, and in some cases several times a week, to present a show on a television channel.”

Caroline Nokes, please note, is a Conservative MP.

Penny Mordaunt, MP, earned her populist spurs by giving one of the most demented rants I have ever heard from any politician of any party. I first heard it on the radio, and I honestly thought she was either drunk, having a breakdown, or under the influence of illegal substances. If you watch, you will find that the words "Stand up and fight!" will remain in your memory. An extract will suffice:

″Stand up and fight – because when you stand up and fight, the person besides you and fights. And when our party stands up and fights, the nation stands up and fights.
And when our nation stands up and fights, other nations stand up and fight.
And they stand up and fight for the things for which the entire progress of humanity depends!”

One wit on Twitter commented:

"Penny Mordaunt got all the Tory Conference delegates ready to stand up and fight, but she forgot to tell them what for, who with or why".

Huffington Post says that when Ms Mordaunt finished her speech, she ran off stage. I don't know where she ran to, but I believe she would make a suitable candidate to replace Laurence Fox on GB News.

But, as we know, the star populist "attraction" at the conference was none other than Nigel Farage, who is not even a Conservative Party member. For some Tories this was no problem. Pritti Patel, as we know, danced and sang with him. I could not imagine an SWP leader being feted in a similar fashion at a Labour Party conference. The Daily Mail spelt it out:

"Nigel Farage has given his clearest hint yet that he could re-join the Tories - but only if they become a 'real' right-wing party.
The Brexit champion has been feted by activists as he attended his first conference in a decade - albeit on a media pass in his capacity as a GB News commentator.
Rishi Sunak has suggested that the door is open for Mr Farage to make a comeback - 30 years after he quit in protest at the Maastricht Treaty".

Yet another right-wing politician on GB News! Seriously, though, the presence of Farage, and his enthusiastic reception, is an ominous sign for more moderate Tories. As George Osborne, quoted in the Independent, said:

"Mr Osborne warned that Mr Farage – having pushed the Conservatives to the right during the Brexit wars – could create “Farage-ism” inside the Tories as the party shifts further to the right.
He’s a sort of Pied Piper character and he is leading the Tory party to his merry tune – again. You would have thought they would have learned their lesson,” he said on his Political Currency podcast".

Perhaps the most deranged speech of the conference came from Transport Secretary, Mark Harper, who perhaps had a drink from the same bottle as Penny Mordaunt when he said that plans are afoot to stop us going to the shops when we want, as well as stopping us driving very far from home. Fifteen-minute cities, raved Harper, are coming for our freedoms. He didn't specify where these cities are coming from. As the Big Issue comments:

"Looking for a straw to grasp as an election grows closer, the Conservative Party has seized upon the language of 15-minute city conspiracy theories, claiming nefarious urban planners are out to seize your personal freedom. It’s motorists vs everyone else".
Descending into madness, Harper railed against the “Labour-backed movement” to “remove your freedom to get to A to B how you want.”
There are “sinister” plans to decide “how often you go to the shops”, he said. Harper (I can't find sufficient respect to give him his title) is clearly a conspiracy theorist who could replace Dan Wootton. GB News must have loved reporting from the Tory conference.

In conclusion, I must say that I am looking forward even more to the next general election campaign. When so many right-wing nutcases are flourishing and growing in influence in the Tory party, defeating them might not be as difficult as some would believe.