Israel’s right to Self-Defence

 

Since 2001, Israel has faced 12,800 missiles (an average of three a day) that have indiscriminately targeted its civilians. Since 2005 from when Israel pulled out of Gaza, Hamas, an organisation committed to Israel’s destruction and who in its charter says it wants to throw all Jews into the sea has turned Gaza into a terror training camp. Under their control 8,000 missiles have been fired into Israel, with 800 this year alone fired and over 120 into Israel from Saturday. No nation can tolerate having its inhabitants lives at risk like this, and the duty of any government across the world is to defend its inhabitants. If Israel did not, it would be failing in its duty. Yet if you just watch the BBC, it appears Israel can do no right and is a warmonger, wantonly killing Palestinian civilians. The truth though, as with most things when it comes to the BBC is somewhat different.

 

First of all, what is the immediate reason for Israel’s response targeting leading Hamas Terrorist leaders. It is that in the last three days alone over 120 rockets have been fired into Israel with no signs of abating. The UK Foreign Office has urged restraint on Israel, but what would the UK Government do if 12,800 rockets were fired into the UK from its neighbours, sit idly by and do nothing, all in the name of restraint? Whether Hamas is behind all these attacks or not, they have let Islamic Jihad and Al Quaeda operate on their soil and are therefore culpable for everything going on in Gaza and should be held to account. The UK Foreign Office asks Hamas for restraint, conflating a terrorist group with a nation’s official army. I’m not sure this is going to work considering that their raison d’etre of Hamas is the destruction of Israel there would be much luck on this. It all goes back to the question of self-defence, Israel within reason should be allowed to respond as a sovereign nation to protect its civilians, especially as they are having to deal with terrorist groups like Hamas who seek their destruction. Any half-hearted restrained action will leave the same unacceptable situation where Israel cannot protect its 1 Million inhabitants living in Southern Israel.

 

What Israel has done to me seems perfectly justified. So far during Operation Pillar of Defence, the head of Hamas’s terrorist wing in Gaza, Ahmed Jabari, has been killed.  Israel has killed Jabari due to his decade long terrorist activity, which has played a major role in killing Israeli civilians. Additionally, eight terrorists were killed in surgical attacks over Khan Yunis in response to continued rocket fire. It is clear from this that the IDF is targeting terrorists and not Palestinian civilians, but this is hard to avoid due to the fact that Hamas fires and hides from civilian areas and uses civilians as human shields. Israel cannot sit by and do nothing, whilst rockets fired from Gaza indiscriminately target Israeli civilians.

 

The problem is that those who disproportionately attack Israel do not see it like this. They are so set on the idea that Israel is the bad guy, that they cannot countenance anything else. If these people truly cared about human rights, why not rail against the mass killings going on in Syria or Iran, or is it simply because it has nothing to do with Israel they do not care. In effect in their view, everyone has a right to self-defence apart from Israel. It all goes back to the attempts by those who hate Israel to delegitimise its very existence as a nation state, and one of the main rights of a nation state, the right to self-defence. As a friend of mine said, “every country has the right to defend itself and every government should protect its citizens, I think its pretty hard to disagree with that.” It is shameful when it comes to Israel, this common sense approach to self-defence goes out of the window, and by simply killing a Hamas Commander for his role in numerous terrorist attacks, Israel is seen to have committed war crimes. It’s the equivalent of the teacher telling the kid off after being mercilessly bullied, for bothering to fight back.

WHY THOSE WHO SUPPORT LIBERTY SHOULD NOT SUPPORT JULIAN ASSANGE

Julian Assange

If you haven’t been living in a cardboard box for the last few months you would have heard all about the antics of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange and his hideout at the Ecuadorian embassy in London. The great and good of the left from former diplomat Craig Murray to George Galloway to Jemima Khan have been speaking out in support of him and taking cheap pot shots at America. However one only has to look at Julian Assange’s recent career path to question his supposed commitment to democracy and liberty. Rather it appears as shown in Nick Cohen’s book What’s Left, he has fallen into the trap that whatever the USA does or support is wrong and by default anyone or any nation who opposes them is in the right. This lead to some very curious alliances involving many state and non-state actors, whose commitment to human rights is not even skin deep.

 
Julian Assange through his involvement and work with Russia Today (which is a mouthpiece for the dictatorial regime in Putin’s Russia and owned by the state) has supported the looting of the State coffers by Putin and his cronies, increased repression against those challenging of the regime, the hobbling of the media so it becomes a door mat for Putin to frequently step on and the systematic destruction of the democratic institutions such as the Judiciary and the Duma (Parliament) that are meant to be there to hold those in public office to account. If Julian Assange cares so much about opposing dictatorial Governments why has he jumped into bed with some of the most disgusting abusers of human rights in the world in regards to Putin’s cronies. Either he despite his speeches has no moral scruples whatsoever and prostitutes himself to the highest bidder or he is so blinded by his hatred of the USA he is prepared to overlook the numerous misdemeanours of the Kremlin. Either way his behaviour is deeply troubling. Additionally he is used his program on Russia Today to invite terrorists on to the show. Indeed in his first show he invited Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah on. In effect he appeared to be giving legitimacy to a mass murderer and a proven anti-Semite. To me this is not the action of someone who supports freedom across the world, rather the opposite in fact.

 
The same left wingers and newspapers such as the Guardian who were so outspoken in the support of the Pussy Rioters have strangely lost their voices when it comes to Julian Assange’s support of the Kremlin. The so-called up holders of human rights across the world will not even challenge Assange on his work. As the Conservative philosopher Edmund Burke said, “all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing”. In terms of Assange’s indirect work for the Kremlin that is exactly what has taken place.

 
To conclude the next time Julian Assange comes across in a speech all high and mighty, just remember he has supported the work of the Kremlin. The same Kremlin who has protected the murderer of Alexander Litvinenko and is rumoured to have ordered other assassinations abroad and funded the Syrian Army in its crushing of democratic opposition. Then think to yourself is this really the sort of person we need in the fight for liberty across the world today.

SERGEI MAGNITSKY AND THE RULE OF LAW IN RUSSIA

For anyone with knowledge of the rule of law and how it plays an important role in a democracy through protecting individuals from arbitrary and selective jurisprudence the Magnitsky case is extremely struggling. It appears to show how those at the heart of the state are nothing better than common criminals, how the Russian Government is rotten to its core and how those doing their job and speaking out against the system can end up in the worst case scenario paying for it with their life. Unfortunately, it paints a picture of Modern Russia where businessman, criminals and politicians act above the law, whilst everyone else especially those who rally against the system find the full force of the “dictatorship of the law” that President Putin often talks about being used against them.
Sergei Magnitsky was a lawyer working on behalf of Hermitage Capital to try and bring those to justice who had essentially robbed the company and defrauded the Russian taxpayers of $230 Million dollars, hardly a trivial amount. The job of a lawyer is to uphold the rule of law and attempt to bring about justice. Fearlessly, Sergei Magnitsky stood up against the might of the Russian State believing justice would be done, that the Kremlin would root out the corrupt officials in their midst and uphold the rule of law. Instead of this Magnitsky was arrested, held in prison conditions that were not fit for an animal and denied the medical treatment that would have kept him alive, tortured and died in custody. The mistreatment did not stop there now, as the Kremlin has charged him with the crime of defrauding the state posthumously in an attempt to blacken his good name. All Magnitsky was doing was his job and yet he lost his life for it. This is not right and the officials involved should be punished severely. This is why I wholeheartedly support the work of the Russian Untouchables who are attempting to bring the accused to justice and publicise what happened to Magnitsky.
Magnitsky represents the fight against elite level corruption and challenging the Kremlin today. His death should not be in vain. If we are to learn anything from Magnitsky’s life it is this, that it is time to speak truth to those in power, in this case the Kremlin who have significantly eroded democracy. Magnitsky has rightly become a hero for anti-corruption campaigners in Russia, who are fed up of elite officials treating Russian taxpayers’ money as their personal trough. Therefore the international community should support the fantastic work of the Russian Untouchables, to do so shows that the international community has mislaid its moral compass. Additionally, in this way more people will know about the Magnitsky case, and as the old saying goes “knowledge is power”. If anyone wants to see the true face of the Kremlin they only have to look at the Magnitsky case where the misuse of power by the state for corrupt means was clear for everyone to see.

Why Depression Matters

Last week I watched Andrew Flintoff’s much heralded BBC program on depression.  As someone who has in 22 years of life experienced the highs and lows that life throws at you, I was very interested to hear how it affected my sporting heroes such as Andrew. I must admit there were even people on the show who I had never heard of, or had heard frequently negative press from. However, in their honesty Ricky Hatton, Barry McGuigan, Graeme Dott and Steve Harmison won me round. It still wasn’t enough to convince me that Piers Morgan is not an utter pillock!

I’m telling you all of this, because when I was young I was bullied both physically and mentally. Some of them for the most trivial reasons, others designed to hurt. They all I have to tell you left me with scars, which I shudder at when I think about them today. Nevertheless, I am glad they have made me stronger and put me in a position, where I feel comfortable with what I have in life and realise that those with strong opinions will always have others targeting them. They are the cowards not me!

If there’s one thing I would like readers to go away with it is this. Bullies are cowards, who deep down are as insecure as the next person. So the next time they attack you, just remember that, they are the losers not you! And if all else fails humour is always a good antidote to their attacks. A particular joke I heard is that “Bullies are taking someone else’s oxygen away from others who deserve it more”. In the program a startling statistic is revealed that 1 in 10 those involved in professional sport suffer from depression. Let’s hope in the wake of Andrew Flintoff’s brave program that more will be prepared to speak out in forums so that the problem is properly dealt with. Problems, after all cannot be dealt with by sweeping them under the carpet.

Your probably wondering how this relates to the voters of Roundhay, Leeds and I’ll attempt to explain why now! Roundhay has some of the best schools in the UK and a beautiful green park and lake that have been home to many fisherman, movie stars and military heroes in the past and by and large their work is commemorated. I want to see this taken to the next level by famous sportsman, military heroes and schoolchildren themselves and even me if they will have me explain their experiences. This could be done at assemblies, seminars and even in sport classes themselves at both primary and secondary schools in the area. By doing this depression can talked about openly and honestly and help those suffering from it contribute to the healing process for others not as lucky as them.

For those who missed the program a link to it can be found here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b019gbpk/Freddie_Flintoff_Hidden_Side_of_Sport/

 There are only 2 days to left it, so you might like to read the Independent’s review on the matter here- http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2012/01/12/the-hidden-side-of-sport-and-beyond/

 If you want to send messages of good luck to Andrew Flintoff his twitter account is here: https://twitter.com/#!/flintoff11

THE BEAUTY OF THE MARKET

Just to give you some festive cheer, I’d like to write about one of my favourite things and I’m sure many of yours also.

Once in a while I try to write a positive article! Today I’m showcasing the great locomotive of history. It bypasses religious, racial, cultural and language barriers, it’s there for everyone rich and every single individual benefits from its invisible hand. It’s called the market and has existed since the earliest origins of mankind. For me a market is human interaction between individuals, which leads to trading, bargaining, bartering, selling and is open to all individuals to take part in. This simple process has been the greatest force for tolerance, diversity and lifting people out of poverty the world has ever seen.

In any market whether it’s in a shack or mansion or simply, there is an in built respect for private property. Each person’s private property, which he/she has earned, is precious. It has to be respected, not trespassed on or damaged, and only through a human interaction between the owner and one or a group of the individuals can this property be leased or sold to another person. It cannot be stolen. This leads to personal responsibility as well as the rule of law, not to mention the unwritten values of tolerance and respect.

A market can work in any environment and work for rich and poor alike. So for example, you hear many people criticising millionaires as selfish individuals who have done nothing for anyone. However the market deconstructed to its simplest levels shows this is demonstrably untrue. Millionaires, whether they mean to or not through the millions they earn, have created products, a service, a trade or something of use to many people that has given them enjoyment, money or some other benefit. This has led to more sales, which has meant that this millionaire can employ more people, these people have more disposable income, which means they can buy more goods and whoever they buy goods from has more money employ more people. This is all driven by self-interest as evidently everyone wants to be better off, but also it makes good sense due to the mechanisms of the market to do this in a way that other individuals benefit also. Put it simply markets make everyone richer, whilst often trying to intervene to change the market even for the best of reasons leads to the sharing of misery. For instance in the 20^th century prohibition tried to restrict the marketplace for alcohol, yet all it did was drive it underground, making it more dangerous and turn many citizens into criminals. There are many more examples that mean we should be suspicious of anyone claiming they want to intervene in the market for the benefit of us all.

A teacher of mine gave me a great image of the market. He said, “The nature of the market is that each individual cell works together to form a beautiful body that survives through emotional self-interaction between different parts of the body, which makes every part of the body stronger.” It is these interactions that have transformed humans and the world in a way that nobody could have imagined.

If it’s that simple, why in the “free market” we supposedly live in do we not have this? The fact is we do not have a free market, we still have too many trade barriers, too much beholden to big business or big government and markets still manipulated by special interests, meaning that markets are acting with one hand tied behind the back. Despite all this we have seen in places like Hong Kong where the market has been allowed to operate relatively freely, prosperity. It’s a path the entire world should follow. It would make the world a more peaceful and prosperous place( and surely everyone wants this!)

I’d also like to take the chance now to wish everyone a Happy Chanukah(to all my Jewish friends) a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.  Enjoy the year ahead!

Waste of Paper?

Unfortunately in the last few hours, despite my best intentions and because of the uncertainty surrounding the web ballot situation, it has been hard to fight the positive campaign that I would like, especially as I have come under personal attack from some sources and been wilfully misconstrued by others. I want to move away from this now though and concentrate on positive reasons why I think you should consider voting for me.

In my role I will be working tother with University branches about issues that matter to them. Considering this, I have been monitoring events with a close eye on my own campus. I’d also like to state clearly that these views are my own and are not necessarily shared by the organisations I mention, nor is any of the organisations mentioned endorsing my election campaign. So here comes the article….

Last year, I was away from the ludicrous regulations and referendums passed in my name and other Leeds University Students, by virtue of our University Union membership. Of course I still heard the odd rumour, there was the attempt to ban bottled water and stop The Sun being sold at the University, but thankfully these referendum motions did not pass.

However this common sense approach did not last for long.  Last week I was informed that a referendum calling for the banning of all leafleting on University property, as well as making it illegal on the surrounding street areas was passed. In one action the Union and those members who voted for it had passed a referendum that damaged both private enterprise and individual liberty, whilst informing me in an email and over Twitter this was in the name of justice and the environment. However, these claims are spurious. Most students I spoke to couldn’t care less about politics and see the referendums for those who are politically active. Therefore, every year turnouts are extremely low, even though all University members are saddled by the consequences. Whilst this year’s turnout was slightly higher than usual, it was still nothing to write home about. It is no wonder with this approach to democracy that myself and friends commonly refer to Leeds University as the Socialist Republic.

If you talk to most students about leafleting on any Campus, they will say similar things. It may be annoying, I may throw it in the bin, but as this is their property through the fees they are paying for they are free to do what they like and I’m free to ignore them as a private individual. I fear for friends in Drama and Theatre Societies who survive on the basis that they can leaflet for shows, which raise money for charities, as well as providing an avenue for good publicity. How about the ten pin bowling society, which I have become an expert on due to my housemates Are they going to be told that there not going to be able to advertise special offers or encourage give it a go sessions, or link up with businesses to organize nights out. Without these promotions the society could wither and die. It appears the Union in this short-sighted and illiberal measure is encouraging this.

At University I frequently pass the Socialist Workers Stall. I find a lot of what they say, wear and shout offensive. I’ve told them this and explained why they might just like to support capitalism. What I would never seek to do though is tell them how to act or promote on campus, as this would undermine freedom of expression.  They have as much right to express their views on campus as I do and leafleting is a valuable part of this. University should symbolise free debate and academic freedom and the leafleting ban flies in the face of this.

Win or lose, I will work to combat examples like this of bias at University, which is detrimental to all students.

PS: Interestingly the link, which did show the results is now unavailable- perhaps this shows a lack of transparency? http://www.leedsuniversityunion.org.uk/news/article/website/3464/

Experience and Principle

I read Phillip’s article, which I found extremely interesting, and I’d like to join in the debate about the issues he raised. Of course experience matters, but I think this is not an age thing; it’s about how much you’ve packed into your life. After all, someone once said you don’t win anything with kids, but was promptly proved wrong!

So for instance, whilst I am younger than Phillip I have worked on election campaigns across Leeds, Hertfordshire, Oldham, Manchester and Yorkshire, local elections in Bedfordshire, Watford, the Midlands etc and have also built up strong links with Conservatives and Libertarians in Europe, America, Canada and Australia.

Last year as a Parliamentary Liaison I built up links right across the Conservative and Libertarian spectrum with MPS, MEPS, Lords, Think Tanks, NGOs and Charities. I’ve also produced reports, which have been used for debates in Parliament, been cited by Select Committees and led to written and oral questions in the House of Commons and Lords. The guiding principle in this work was to stand up for what I believe in and work with as many people and organisation’s as possible who share my views.

Like Phillip I wouldn’t have stood for CF Deputy Chairman (Political) if I didn’t think I could bring my valuable experience to the table. I also happen to think due to my wide-ranging experience, I’m in a unique position to appeal to all wings of the Conservative and Libertarian Family and concentrate on what unites us. This means the criticism of YBF and TFA, which many young Conservative members attend, is so detrimental. People say the problem with YBF is that it’s too right-wing and stifling debate, but if you believe this then attend their events and debate. Rather than sitting on the sidelines, lets work with them to take CF forward. To ignore them or to try and portray them as far right nutters is simply criminal.

On the point of titles that is probably where Phillip and me differ respectfully. I know from speaking to other members, you can have all the titles in the world, but if you’re not willing to listen to all members, cannot be bothered to work with those in University and NGOS, Businesses, Charities and think tanks on events, and have petty rivalries with MPs that leads to campaigning being damaged then it doesn’t matter. In fact sometimes it’s positively harmful. That’s why I think we need to tackle the present feeling of elitism in CF. Just because I haven’t been a Chairman or Deputy Chairman before, doesn’t mean I don’t have a lack of experience, It just means I have chosen to go a different path to spread the Conservative message. We’re all individuals after all and there isn’t one set path to success. I think a danger on getting to fixated on titles, is that we end up casting out some of our most innovative members, for having opinions or views that those in positions of power in the Conservative Party find unacceptable, even if it’s what the vast majority of what members thinks.

My worry about the contract that Phillip supports is that it could be used to get rid of those who work hard, but because their independent minded and thus cause problems for those at the head of the Party, who don’t seem happy to tolerate dissent. This is why I’m backing Dom for CF Chairman, because I think that he would bring a fresh approach to CF, which would appeal to all members and why I’m voting Sarah Jane Sewell for Deputy Membership CF due to her boundless energy.

Of course you shouldn’t go for a position, if you do not believe you cannot do a good job. However, I wouldn’t have some sort of arbitrary test, saying that this person is unacceptable, because there not a yes man (women) who in order for a career will say different things to different groups of people. Ultimately, that’s bad for the Conservative Party in the long run, because it means we lose a lot of talent, which will go elsewhere. I don’t think this is an infrequent occurrence.  Those in think tanks frequently spot those who are destined to go far and I think we should nurture them, rather than discouraging them from going for a position where they can change things. I think the vibrancy of views and backgrounds of candidates in the CF elections, show that talent is alive and well in the Conservative Party, we’ve just got to start realising it!

I believe experience and principles go hand in hand. I also think that CF members should be given the tools and opportunities by the national executive to gain valuable experience, as well as advice on how to stand up for the principles you who hold dear. If you agree with me on this then please do vote for me by December 12 for National CF Deputy Chairman(Political).

The article I refer to is here: http://www.londonspinonline.com/2011/12/does-experience-matter.html#comment-form