John Berger is still alive.

After what seems like a long hiatus, John Berger, who some of us thinks of as the archetypical 1970s lefty poseur, has resurfaced in the Guardian's Comment is Free section with a rallying call in support of a cultural boycott of Israel by academics and jugglers. The boycott is meant as a protest against lethal attacks by Israeli women and children on Hamas and Hezbollah. Or should that be the other way round? Whichever, Mr B seems to be a little worried about being branded a racist, so he explains,

Boycott is not a principle. When it becomes one, it itself risks becoming exclusive and racist. No boycott, in our sense of the term, should be directed against an individual, a people, or a nation as such. A boycott is directed against a policy and the institutions which support that policy either actively or tacitly. Its aim is not to reject, but to bring about change.

The Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel is being proposed by various luvvy types, none of whom has registered on my cultural radar.

Now you know. Where is my credit card?

PS: I thought I had better add a biography of the once ultra-fashionable Berger.

Tags: Berger, Palestinian cultural Boycott.

Fisk corrected; French survive

Back in October, Robert "the Arabs were justified in beating the crap out of me" Fisk, the Indy's resident senior moonbat, accused the Israelis of nuking Lebanon.

It was obviously crude anti-Israeli propaganda. I missed the United Nations rebuttal but Israellycool did not.

Meanwhile, in the (sur)real world of Lebanon, Voice of America reports that French troops came within seconds of firing at the Israeli Force:

..the planes were clearly in an attack position, and normally French troops would fire in self-defense in such a situation. They did not, for reasons that remain unclear.

Given the IAF's reputation it is probably just as well for them that they did not open fire.

Tags: Robert Fisk, Israel, Lebanon

Isreal and Hezbollah: Another war?

In today's edition of the Daily Telegraph, resident military historian, John Keegan, argues that another war in the Middle East is inevitable because the Israeli's cannot afford to allow Hezbollah to rebuild its fortified zone in southern Lebanon.

What happened in south Lebanon earlier this year has been widely misunderstood, largely because the anti-Israel bias in the international media led to the situation being misreported as an Israeli defeat.

It was no such thing. It was certainly an Israeli setback, but the idea that the IDF had suddenly lost its historic superiority over its Arab enemies and that they had acquired military qualities that had hitherto eluded them was quite false. Hizbollah suffered heavy losses in the fighting, perhaps as many as 1,000 killed out of its strength of up to 5,000 and it is only just now recovering.

What allowed Hizbollah to appear successful was its occupation of the bunker-and-tunnel system that it had constructed since June 2000, when the IDF gave up its presence in south Lebanon, which it had occupied since 1982.

To ensure the security of its population, perhaps sooner rather than later, Israel will have to remove the tunnel systems and the missile threat it poses. Keegan thinks that, this time, Syria might defend Hezbollah but their intervention would offer both the USA and Israel a chance to deal with a state increasingly regarded "as Iran's advanced post on the Mediterranean shore."

Tags: Israel, Hezbollah, Middle East

Israelis nuke Lebanon by R. Fisk.

In the Independent (where else?), intrepid reporter Robert Fisk (who else?) asks,

Did Israel use a secret new uranium-based weapon in southern Lebanon this summer in the 34-day assault that cost more than 1,300 Lebanese lives, most of them civilians?

Given Fisk's evidence, or rather lack of it, the answer is almost certainly, they did not. Perhaps he is confusing the IDF with SMERSH. Actually, the real story is that a British scientist detected higher than normal radiation levels in material sent to him from a Lebanese bomb crater and inferred that depleted uranium shells might have been used. From that vague finding, Fisk set his imagination to work and came up with the secret atom bomb theory. As yet nobody has been able to confirm the Indy's conclusions. What a surprise!

In case such vacuity proves insufficient to prove the evil of the Israelis to Indy readers, Fisk excites them further by claiming that he had previously seen

...two dead babies who, when taken from a mortuary drawer in West Beirut during the Israeli siege of the city, suddenly burst back into flames.

In this context, previously means 14 years earlier. Fisk finishes off with a few hundred words on the health hazards of radioactivity - it's the isotopes, stupid - and how the bad guys from Israel murderously attacked the innocent Lebanese.

As propaganda goes, it is a good basic idea, but the storyline needs more work. Perhaps the Israelis should be placed in alliance with the Goa'uld. It would be more believable.

Tags: Israel, Lebanon

Israel in NATO?

The Jewish news service, Ynet has a story examining the possibility that Israel will join NATO. The obvious question is, why? What possible reason can Israel have for wanting to join a defensive alliance in which most of the member countries are in it for a free ride. Of the 26 member states, 21 will not raise a single rifle to defend themselves and one (France) behaves as though it is not a member.

NATO is a coalition of the unwilling. Its combat operations in Afghanistan are being undertaken by the US, British, Canadians and Dutch armed forces. Although NATO's ISAF is desperately short of troops, the rest of the members either will not send any troops or refuse to let those they do send go into combat areas. Australia makes a more military valuable contribution to NATO that the majority of member states. Do the Israelis really want to join this shambolic alliance?

A relic of the Cold War, NATO no longer serves any useful purpose and the farce over troops for Afghanistan is surely one of the final few nails in its coffin. The debate now should be about what structures are to replace it. Israel could be a valuable member of some type of new security apparatus.

Tags: Israel, NATO

Israeli "Night of Terror"

Night of Terror says the BBC headline (under "Features, Views, Analysis", bottom left). This being the BBC, the report refers to an IDF defensive operation in Gaza, where they were hunting unspecified "Palestinian militants". Hamas or Hezballah or perhaps the IDF was chasing PLO ghosts? We are not told. We are told that the troops were beating an innocent mentally disabled youngster, who was defended by a brave relative from al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades militant group.

Now, that is what I call propoganda.

A week old but it this it is still prominent on the BBC's Middle East page. Has nothing important happened in Gaza or the Middle East in the last seven days?

Tags: Gaza, Israel.