Friday, July 14, 2006
Disproportionate response?
Israel was recently attacked by the Lebanese Islamic movement, Hezbollah, on its northern border. Two of its soldiers were captured and innumerable rockets and missiles have been fired at Israeli towns and, yesterday, the city of Haifa. Israel responded by shelling suspected Hezbollah positions with long-range artillery and by targeting air strikes at Hezbollah offices in Beirut. This response has been deemed disproportionate by many in the international community and, while they have the right to their opinion, the supposedly objective media does not. Most television and radio reports in the UK have seen Israel's action as a response to the capture of its soldiers; if this was the whole story, such a response would indeed be disproportionate. However, the reality is that Hezbollah has been firing rockets across the border for months, if not years, and the kidnapping was simply the straw that broke the camel's back: Israel is not simply responding in this way in an effort to retrieve its soldiers, it is defending itself against a long-running campaign of guerilla warfare, and the sooner the world's media recognises that, the better.
Monday, July 10, 2006
Why, Zizou? Why?!
The retiring French football captain, Zinedine Zidane, was sent off in yesterday's World Cup Final for head-butting Italian defender Marco Materazzi. Zidane today said, through his agent, that words had been exchanged and that Materazzi had made (in paraphrase) "very serious" comments about the Frenchman. Zidane went on to win the Player of the Tournament award from FIFA, football's international governing body.
Surely Zidane should have refused the award on the grounds that violent conduct should not be condoned in this way? It's not that accepting the award would make him a role model for young players; he already carries that status, as shown in the many press conferences before the final. However, it would have been an excellent show of integrity - and an implicit apology - if Zidane had passed the award on to the second-placed player, Italian defender Fabio Cannavaro.
Having said that, Zidane has already ended his career in a mixture of disgrace and celebration, so to deny him an award which he surely deserves, if the red card is ignored, might seem rather unfair. I am very interested to hear people's opinions on this one...
Surely Zidane should have refused the award on the grounds that violent conduct should not be condoned in this way? It's not that accepting the award would make him a role model for young players; he already carries that status, as shown in the many press conferences before the final. However, it would have been an excellent show of integrity - and an implicit apology - if Zidane had passed the award on to the second-placed player, Italian defender Fabio Cannavaro.
Having said that, Zidane has already ended his career in a mixture of disgrace and celebration, so to deny him an award which he surely deserves, if the red card is ignored, might seem rather unfair. I am very interested to hear people's opinions on this one...
Thursday, June 22, 2006
Update: Unreported
(See original article: Unreported)
I have recently heard that the Israeli Government has found that elements of its report were incorrect. It now seems possible that the deaths were caused by an Israeli shell fired in error, possibly against orders.
It is interesting, however, that this item of news was much more widely reported than the original report, which exonerated the IDF. The media are ready and willing to attack states when they make mistakes, but when rebel/militant/terrorist groups make regular small-scale attacks on civilians (such as the numerous Qassam rockets fired every day at Israeli towns from Palestinian positions), this remains largely - to quote my original article - unreported.
I have recently heard that the Israeli Government has found that elements of its report were incorrect. It now seems possible that the deaths were caused by an Israeli shell fired in error, possibly against orders.
It is interesting, however, that this item of news was much more widely reported than the original report, which exonerated the IDF. The media are ready and willing to attack states when they make mistakes, but when rebel/militant/terrorist groups make regular small-scale attacks on civilians (such as the numerous Qassam rockets fired every day at Israeli towns from Palestinian positions), this remains largely - to quote my original article - unreported.
Liquid Assets
Thames Water, the company holding the monopoly over water supply and sewage treatment in the Greater London area, is in crisis... or is it? The company made a profit of £450m on a turnover of £1.4bn last year, and returned £246m to shareholders in dividends - what crisis?
The other side of the story is that the company's water leakage record is scandalous. They have failed to meet their own targets on leakages from public water mains three years running, and are still replacing Victorian mains in many areas. Surely Victorian piping should have been replaced 50 years ago...
The company defends itself by saying that it has to make a profit or shareholders will not invest. This is simultaneously patronising and absurd, and shows why privately-owned profit-making companies should not be running public service monoplies like water supply. They also argue that they have fixed more leaks than the previous nationalised utility, but this entirely due to the ever-aging network and poor maintenance by said utility.
However, this does not excuse Thames from doing a generally awful job. Surely the first thing the chairman of the newly-formed monopoly company should have said at the inaugural board meeting should have been, "We must replace all of these Victorian pipes." It seems that such an obvious measure was overlooked in favour of cutting rates (relative to previous years' rises) to persuade the public that privatisation was working.
Yet again a privatised public service has failed, and yet again it is not accountable to anyone. The regulator, OFWAT, could fine the company, but they would argue that such action would reduce their ability to meet their targets in future years. (In any case, money raised from such fines goes directly to the Treasury and does nothing to help alleviate water supply problems.) They could also be ordered to cut their rates, but this would bankrupt the company as banks would refuse to offer loans due to "regulatory risk", i.e. the risk of said fines being applied.
In addition, there is no competition in the water supply sector. I am not proposing that there should be - indeed, I would prefer to see the whole system renationalised and amalgamated into a single company - but the gas and electricity supply sector is doing relatively well since market forces were left to do their work.
All this just goes to show that the purpose of privatisation is to move problems in public services away from government ministers and into the hands of unaccountable private businessmen, and a regulator which has no power to do anything to remedy the situation when things go wrong is no regulator whatsoever.
The other side of the story is that the company's water leakage record is scandalous. They have failed to meet their own targets on leakages from public water mains three years running, and are still replacing Victorian mains in many areas. Surely Victorian piping should have been replaced 50 years ago...
The company defends itself by saying that it has to make a profit or shareholders will not invest. This is simultaneously patronising and absurd, and shows why privately-owned profit-making companies should not be running public service monoplies like water supply. They also argue that they have fixed more leaks than the previous nationalised utility, but this entirely due to the ever-aging network and poor maintenance by said utility.
However, this does not excuse Thames from doing a generally awful job. Surely the first thing the chairman of the newly-formed monopoly company should have said at the inaugural board meeting should have been, "We must replace all of these Victorian pipes." It seems that such an obvious measure was overlooked in favour of cutting rates (relative to previous years' rises) to persuade the public that privatisation was working.
Yet again a privatised public service has failed, and yet again it is not accountable to anyone. The regulator, OFWAT, could fine the company, but they would argue that such action would reduce their ability to meet their targets in future years. (In any case, money raised from such fines goes directly to the Treasury and does nothing to help alleviate water supply problems.) They could also be ordered to cut their rates, but this would bankrupt the company as banks would refuse to offer loans due to "regulatory risk", i.e. the risk of said fines being applied.
In addition, there is no competition in the water supply sector. I am not proposing that there should be - indeed, I would prefer to see the whole system renationalised and amalgamated into a single company - but the gas and electricity supply sector is doing relatively well since market forces were left to do their work.
All this just goes to show that the purpose of privatisation is to move problems in public services away from government ministers and into the hands of unaccountable private businessmen, and a regulator which has no power to do anything to remedy the situation when things go wrong is no regulator whatsoever.
Thursday, June 15, 2006
Unreported
It appears that much of the Western media has failed to notice the publication of a report by the Israeli Government, which concludes that the deaths of several people on a beach in the Gaza Strip were not caused by Israeli fire. The report provides evidence to back up this conclusion, including some taken from shrapnel found on the beach. The report states that no Israeli ammunition of the type of which remains were found on the beach was used that day. Therefore, there are only really three possibilities; the deaths could have been caused by:
The "Qassam" rockets regularly fired at Israeli towns by members of Palestinian terrorist groups are known to be highly unreliable and regularly misfire, but this usually results in injuries to the people firing the missile rather than innocent bystanders. In any case, the missiles are not so poorly made that they would end up in completely the wrong place - their main weakness seems to be range control.
And as for an Israeli soldier firing on a Palestinian family on purpose, who would do such a thing? There have been incidents of Israeli soldiers killing civilians on purpose but such cases are few and far between and are prosecuted vigourously by the military authorities. Again, this seems unlikely.
So, my conclusion is that the whole incident was some sort of freak accident. I'd say my 1st option above was the most likely, but I will be very interested to hear the results of investigations by the Palestinians.
- An unexploded bomb or land mine.
- A misdirected rocket fired from a Palestinian position.
- An Israeli soldier firing against orders.
The "Qassam" rockets regularly fired at Israeli towns by members of Palestinian terrorist groups are known to be highly unreliable and regularly misfire, but this usually results in injuries to the people firing the missile rather than innocent bystanders. In any case, the missiles are not so poorly made that they would end up in completely the wrong place - their main weakness seems to be range control.
And as for an Israeli soldier firing on a Palestinian family on purpose, who would do such a thing? There have been incidents of Israeli soldiers killing civilians on purpose but such cases are few and far between and are prosecuted vigourously by the military authorities. Again, this seems unlikely.
So, my conclusion is that the whole incident was some sort of freak accident. I'd say my 1st option above was the most likely, but I will be very interested to hear the results of investigations by the Palestinians.
Wednesday, May 17, 2006
Why should we suffer?
By "we", I refer to students.
The Association of University Teachers (AUT), a trade union to which many British university lecturers belong, recently decided to take industrial action over pay. The union is demanding a 23% pay increase; the highest offer made by the employers is about half that. The industrial action will consist of lecturers involved in setting and marking examinations (the majority) not doing so. This could delay results and might even delay graduations.
This is a serious threat. However, why does the AUT feel it necessary to make the life of students misery at a time when we are all under enough stress as it is? If the union has a quarrel with its members' employers, why does it have to bring students into it? The National Union of Students (NUS) supports the action because it says that higher pay will mean higher quality education - but at what cost? I have sympathy for the lecturers' cause, but their industrial action is irresponsible at best. I can only hope that the UCEA (the Universities and Colleges Employers' Association) can sort this out before it turns into a national outrage and a disaster for a great many students, finalists in particular.
Update: I have just heard that the UCEA has said that some universities might have to lay off some staff in order to finance the pay rises - is this what the AUT want?
The Association of University Teachers (AUT), a trade union to which many British university lecturers belong, recently decided to take industrial action over pay. The union is demanding a 23% pay increase; the highest offer made by the employers is about half that. The industrial action will consist of lecturers involved in setting and marking examinations (the majority) not doing so. This could delay results and might even delay graduations.
This is a serious threat. However, why does the AUT feel it necessary to make the life of students misery at a time when we are all under enough stress as it is? If the union has a quarrel with its members' employers, why does it have to bring students into it? The National Union of Students (NUS) supports the action because it says that higher pay will mean higher quality education - but at what cost? I have sympathy for the lecturers' cause, but their industrial action is irresponsible at best. I can only hope that the UCEA (the Universities and Colleges Employers' Association) can sort this out before it turns into a national outrage and a disaster for a great many students, finalists in particular.
Update: I have just heard that the UCEA has said that some universities might have to lay off some staff in order to finance the pay rises - is this what the AUT want?
Follow-up: Nuclear Power
(See "To build or not to build..." for background.)
Tony Blair today announced that he believes that there should be a new generation of nuclear power plants in the UK. As I said in my recent post, nuclear isn't the perfect solution but it's the best we've got as far as solving the energy crisis goes.
Good luck to him (and/or his successor) getting it through Parliament though - it won't be an easy ride.
Tony Blair today announced that he believes that there should be a new generation of nuclear power plants in the UK. As I said in my recent post, nuclear isn't the perfect solution but it's the best we've got as far as solving the energy crisis goes.
Good luck to him (and/or his successor) getting it through Parliament though - it won't be an easy ride.
Human Rights of Convicted Criminals
Nine Afghans were recently granted leave to remain (and work) in Britain after, in 2000, they hijacked a Boeing 727 on an internal flight in Afghanistan and forced it to land at Stansted Airport, near London. Mr. Justice Sullivan ruled that although in normal circumstances they would be deported back to their country of origin, this was incompatible with the Human Rights Act (an implementation of the European Convention on Human Rights) as sending the nine back to Afghanistan might endanger their lives.
What seems to have been missed in this case is that not only was Mr. Justice Sullivan's ruling completely compatible with British law, it complies perfectly with the European Convention. Many, including the Prime Minister, have called for amendments to the Human Rights Act, but I find it difficult to see what could be changed without forcing Britain to withdraw from the Convention.
The Government have found themselves between a rock and a hard place: on the one hand there is the majority of public opinion, which wants foreign criminals promptly deported; on the other hand there is the principle of human rights. It is rare for the majority of public opinion in a Western liberal democracy, such as Britain, to be opposed to the Human Rights Act, as it stands, but that's where it currently is - even if few would admit it.
Now the Home Office has to decide what it can do to stay within the rules of the Convention while preventing a similar ruling being given in the future. Needless to say, this is a near-impossible task. The obvious solution would be to put people in prison, but then what should be done once their sentence finishes? The train of thought then leads us to life imprisonment, but that would be impractical, expensive, and unnecessarily harsh. Perhaps we could deport such criminals to third countries, but which countries would stand up and say, "Yes, we want some criminals!"? Or, we could say that criminals lose their human rights as soon as they commit a crime of a certain seriousness, but that goes against the most basic principle of human rights (that they apply to everyone in all circumstances) and then we have an argument over what "level" of crime would warrant the removal of the perpetrator's rights.
This is one issue where I genuinely have no opinion other than to say that something has to be done. What that "something" is, I'll leave to the powers-that-be.
What seems to have been missed in this case is that not only was Mr. Justice Sullivan's ruling completely compatible with British law, it complies perfectly with the European Convention. Many, including the Prime Minister, have called for amendments to the Human Rights Act, but I find it difficult to see what could be changed without forcing Britain to withdraw from the Convention.
The Government have found themselves between a rock and a hard place: on the one hand there is the majority of public opinion, which wants foreign criminals promptly deported; on the other hand there is the principle of human rights. It is rare for the majority of public opinion in a Western liberal democracy, such as Britain, to be opposed to the Human Rights Act, as it stands, but that's where it currently is - even if few would admit it.
Now the Home Office has to decide what it can do to stay within the rules of the Convention while preventing a similar ruling being given in the future. Needless to say, this is a near-impossible task. The obvious solution would be to put people in prison, but then what should be done once their sentence finishes? The train of thought then leads us to life imprisonment, but that would be impractical, expensive, and unnecessarily harsh. Perhaps we could deport such criminals to third countries, but which countries would stand up and say, "Yes, we want some criminals!"? Or, we could say that criminals lose their human rights as soon as they commit a crime of a certain seriousness, but that goes against the most basic principle of human rights (that they apply to everyone in all circumstances) and then we have an argument over what "level" of crime would warrant the removal of the perpetrator's rights.
This is one issue where I genuinely have no opinion other than to say that something has to be done. What that "something" is, I'll leave to the powers-that-be.
Wednesday, May 10, 2006
Funding the Palestinians
I was delighted with yesterday's announcement that the "Quartet" group (The UN, USA, UK and Russia) had set up a trust fund into which money would be paid in order to support the Palestinian people. The international community has been arguing amongst itself about the merits or otherwise of funding the Palestinian Hamas-led government, given Hamas' hardline stance, but there is one general consensus: the rest of the world cannot punish the Palestinian people for their choice of leaders. It has seemed obvious to me for some time that a trust fund such as that now set up - which gives money direct to individual people or to public projects via NGOs - is the only sensible way to stop the Palestinian territories from going bankrupt.
If this move helps the Palestinians to understand that the world is not against them as a whole, just against their terrorist groups (Hamas, Islamic Jihad, et al) then it will do a world of good in the Middle East conflict as a whole.
If this move helps the Palestinians to understand that the world is not against them as a whole, just against their terrorist groups (Hamas, Islamic Jihad, et al) then it will do a world of good in the Middle East conflict as a whole.
Monday, May 08, 2006
To build or not to build...
Debate in many countries, Britain included, has recently turned to the future of electricity supply, and the argument that, however much we invest in renewable energy technologies, they will never contribute significantly to our electricity grids. In Britain in particular, there simply isn't the space for wind farms or the rivers for hydroelectric dams. Tidal power is a promising technology but it appears that it will also be unable to fill the energy gap. So... the debate is now all about nuclear power and, specifically, the value of building new nuclear plants.
For me, nuclear power is the only solution to the energy gap. It may have many problems of its own - nuclear waste, high initial costs, risk of meltdown - but these can be reduced through investment in research, something that has been lacking in recent decades. When these very serious problems are compared to those of fossil fuels - there won't be any left soon, to put it bluntly - and renewable sources - not enough generation capacity - it becomes apparent, in my eyes, that nuclear really is the least of three evils. By all means we must continue to build wind farms, where practical - off-shore if possible, and to develop new renewable energy technologies but, in the mean time, we must act now by commissioning new nuclear plants before our dependency on fossil fuels drives us headlong into World War Three.
The British Government is due to publish its "Energy Review" shortly. Many believe that it is a stunt designed to show that nuclear is the best option, and many anti-nuclear activists bemoan this as if it's bad science: it isn't. It will be no government whitewash (or indeed hogwash) to suggest that the commissioning of new nuclear plants is the best option in the medium term, it just makes sense:
For me, nuclear power is the only solution to the energy gap. It may have many problems of its own - nuclear waste, high initial costs, risk of meltdown - but these can be reduced through investment in research, something that has been lacking in recent decades. When these very serious problems are compared to those of fossil fuels - there won't be any left soon, to put it bluntly - and renewable sources - not enough generation capacity - it becomes apparent, in my eyes, that nuclear really is the least of three evils. By all means we must continue to build wind farms, where practical - off-shore if possible, and to develop new renewable energy technologies but, in the mean time, we must act now by commissioning new nuclear plants before our dependency on fossil fuels drives us headlong into World War Three.
The British Government is due to publish its "Energy Review" shortly. Many believe that it is a stunt designed to show that nuclear is the best option, and many anti-nuclear activists bemoan this as if it's bad science: it isn't. It will be no government whitewash (or indeed hogwash) to suggest that the commissioning of new nuclear plants is the best option in the medium term, it just makes sense:
- We will reduce our reliance on fossil fuels dramatically within a few years.
- We will be able to take our time developing new renewable technologies rather than rushing them through to solve short-term energy supply problems.
Saturday, May 06, 2006
Resignation
Under what circumstances should a politician resign? If he/she is running a department should any minor misdemeanor by departmental staff be a resignation issue? Certainly not. If he/she murders someone in cold blood? Certainly, although the judicial system should take care of that. So, what about all the possibilities in between? At what point does a politician become responsible for the actions of his/her underlings and what level of responsibility demands the rolling of heads?
All these questions have come to the fore, yet again, in British politics recently with the actions of Charles Clarke (former Home Secretary) and John Prescott (Deputy Prime Minister). For those readers not into the intricacies of the Westminster "village", the former presided over a period when hundreds of foreign criminals we not considered for deportation upon release when they should have been, and the latter had an oh-so-traditional affair with a secretary in his department.
While the actions of Mr. Prescott might be immoral, it's debatable whether or not they demand the use of the governmental axe. Those of Mr. Clarke, however, are inexcusable. It would seem sensible to me that making such a serious sequence of errors over such a long period of time and failing to inform the Prime Minister, even when asked about it directly, and then ignoring several reports identifying the problem should demand an instant resignation - but not in the world of New Labour! Mr. Clarke refused to fall on his sword and had to be sacked by Tony Blair in his recent reshuffle.
So, it seems that my earlier assumption was right: anything but murder is fine...
All these questions have come to the fore, yet again, in British politics recently with the actions of Charles Clarke (former Home Secretary) and John Prescott (Deputy Prime Minister). For those readers not into the intricacies of the Westminster "village", the former presided over a period when hundreds of foreign criminals we not considered for deportation upon release when they should have been, and the latter had an oh-so-traditional affair with a secretary in his department.
While the actions of Mr. Prescott might be immoral, it's debatable whether or not they demand the use of the governmental axe. Those of Mr. Clarke, however, are inexcusable. It would seem sensible to me that making such a serious sequence of errors over such a long period of time and failing to inform the Prime Minister, even when asked about it directly, and then ignoring several reports identifying the problem should demand an instant resignation - but not in the world of New Labour! Mr. Clarke refused to fall on his sword and had to be sacked by Tony Blair in his recent reshuffle.
So, it seems that my earlier assumption was right: anything but murder is fine...
Friday, April 07, 2006
James Miller
I've been following the case of the British film-maker James Miller with interest. For those of you who haven't, he was in the process of making a film called "Death in Gaza" about the lives of children in the Gaza Strip when he was shot dead while walking towards an Israeli Army position. He and his crew were holding a white flag illuminated by a torch and had fluorescent markings on their clothes saying "TV". Despite this, the video of the incident shows shots being fired from the direction of the Israeli position.
An inquest held by a London coroner (at St. Pancras) recently recorded a verdict of "unlawful killing". For those of you unfamiliar with the British legal process, this verdict implies that a criminal investigation should take place in the country where the death occurred. During the case, the coroner described the shots as being (my paraphrase) "slow, deliberate, and aimed". Therefore, he concluded, the jury should return a verdict of unlawful killing. (It is common in British coroner's inquests for the coroner to instruct the jury in this way.)
There was an inquiry by the Israeli Defense Forces held some time after Mr. Miller's death, which focused on a Lieutenant Heim. The Lieutenant was cleared of "misuse of firearms" and the Israeli authorities did not proceed with a prosecution for manslaughter (they had said earlier that a charge of murder was out of the question) due to insufficient evidence.
Mr. Miller's family, speaking after the conclusion of the inquest, said that the Israeli authorities must prosecute Lieutenant Heim for manslaughter or murder now that a verdict of unlawful killing has been recorded. I find such demands ridiculous. Israel is a democratic country and has a very respected legal system. The investigation there has taken years and there is still insufficient evidence. I do feel for Mr. Miller's family but they are in no position to demand that a foreign country wastes money on a prosecution which is unlikely to succeed. No matter the truth of the events surrounding Mr. Miller's death, if there is insufficient evidence then nothing can be done: this is in the nature of a democratic judicial process.
However, I am concerned about this case and the implications if anyone were to be convicted of a criminal offence related to it. For example, Mr. Miller could not have expected to be entirely safe in the Gaza Strip, one of the most dangerous places in the world, so he was putting his life at risk by filming there. Soldiers who are all-too-used to seeing Palestinian terrorists hiding bombs in ambulances are within their rights to be suspicious of a group of people walking towards them waving a white flag in the middle of the night. By no means am I justifying the killing of James Miller, far from it, but to characterise his killer as someone who is just "trigger-happy" is unfair. Incompetent, possibly, but not trigger-happy.
I have often wondered if the same furore would have occurred if Mr. Miller had been shot by a Palestinian. It seems to me that those who wish to (politically) attack Israel jumped on this case as an example of Israeli brutality and disregard for human rights, despite the fact that less foreigners die in Israel - a country under constant threat of attack by terrorists - than each of its Arab neighbours individually - countries generally regarded as 'safe'.
James Miller probably was killed by an Israeli soldier, but demanding that further judicial proceedings take place with insufficient evidence does not help anyone.
An inquest held by a London coroner (at St. Pancras) recently recorded a verdict of "unlawful killing". For those of you unfamiliar with the British legal process, this verdict implies that a criminal investigation should take place in the country where the death occurred. During the case, the coroner described the shots as being (my paraphrase) "slow, deliberate, and aimed". Therefore, he concluded, the jury should return a verdict of unlawful killing. (It is common in British coroner's inquests for the coroner to instruct the jury in this way.)
There was an inquiry by the Israeli Defense Forces held some time after Mr. Miller's death, which focused on a Lieutenant Heim. The Lieutenant was cleared of "misuse of firearms" and the Israeli authorities did not proceed with a prosecution for manslaughter (they had said earlier that a charge of murder was out of the question) due to insufficient evidence.
Mr. Miller's family, speaking after the conclusion of the inquest, said that the Israeli authorities must prosecute Lieutenant Heim for manslaughter or murder now that a verdict of unlawful killing has been recorded. I find such demands ridiculous. Israel is a democratic country and has a very respected legal system. The investigation there has taken years and there is still insufficient evidence. I do feel for Mr. Miller's family but they are in no position to demand that a foreign country wastes money on a prosecution which is unlikely to succeed. No matter the truth of the events surrounding Mr. Miller's death, if there is insufficient evidence then nothing can be done: this is in the nature of a democratic judicial process.
However, I am concerned about this case and the implications if anyone were to be convicted of a criminal offence related to it. For example, Mr. Miller could not have expected to be entirely safe in the Gaza Strip, one of the most dangerous places in the world, so he was putting his life at risk by filming there. Soldiers who are all-too-used to seeing Palestinian terrorists hiding bombs in ambulances are within their rights to be suspicious of a group of people walking towards them waving a white flag in the middle of the night. By no means am I justifying the killing of James Miller, far from it, but to characterise his killer as someone who is just "trigger-happy" is unfair. Incompetent, possibly, but not trigger-happy.
I have often wondered if the same furore would have occurred if Mr. Miller had been shot by a Palestinian. It seems to me that those who wish to (politically) attack Israel jumped on this case as an example of Israeli brutality and disregard for human rights, despite the fact that less foreigners die in Israel - a country under constant threat of attack by terrorists - than each of its Arab neighbours individually - countries generally regarded as 'safe'.
James Miller probably was killed by an Israeli soldier, but demanding that further judicial proceedings take place with insufficient evidence does not help anyone.
Welcome
Hi, I'm Allan - welcome to my blog: Radically Centrist!
First, I'd like to explain the title of my blog. Chambers dictionary defines "radical" as:
"in favour of or tending to produce thoroughgoing or extreme political and social reforms"
and "centrist" as:
"having moderate, non-extreme political opinions".
These may seem to be opposing definitions, but let me explain. I believe that left- and right-wing politics do not conform to the maxim of "pleasing most of the people most of the time" - for me, the fundamental aim of any political system. The ideals of centrism are generally undefined, in my opinion. The main aim of the centrist is to find a middle ground between the conventional left and right wings, represented (traditionally, but not necessarily in the current political climate) by the Labour and Conservative Parties in the UK, the Democrats and Republicans in the USA, and the Social and Christian Democrats in Germany. In this way, the maxim, above, can be achieved.
In future posts, I aim to set out my opinions on various topics (not necessarily strictly political) and determine if I can achieve my favourite maxim.
First, I'd like to explain the title of my blog. Chambers dictionary defines "radical" as:
"in favour of or tending to produce thoroughgoing or extreme political and social reforms"
and "centrist" as:
"having moderate, non-extreme political opinions".
These may seem to be opposing definitions, but let me explain. I believe that left- and right-wing politics do not conform to the maxim of "pleasing most of the people most of the time" - for me, the fundamental aim of any political system. The ideals of centrism are generally undefined, in my opinion. The main aim of the centrist is to find a middle ground between the conventional left and right wings, represented (traditionally, but not necessarily in the current political climate) by the Labour and Conservative Parties in the UK, the Democrats and Republicans in the USA, and the Social and Christian Democrats in Germany. In this way, the maxim, above, can be achieved.
In future posts, I aim to set out my opinions on various topics (not necessarily strictly political) and determine if I can achieve my favourite maxim.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)