It is terrific news, not just for those who like his writing, but for the blogosphere in general (and therefore even for those bloggers who don’t like his writing), that Stephen Pollard has now got himself a brand spanking new blog, which really is a blog, and that it is now no harder to link to his blog postings than it is to anyone else’s, which wasn’t the case with his previous arrangement.
Consider his piece for today’s Sunday Telegraph, which he has also put up at stephenpollard.net, entitled, in his (to quote the top of the new blog) “never knowingly understated” manner, Why Israel is right to assassinate Hamas leaders.
The comparison with the IRA is entirely specious. If the IRA had espoused not merely the separation of Northern Ireland from the UK but also the murder of every Unionist and every Anglican in Great Britain, the abolition of the United Kingdom and its replacement with a Catholic state, run by the IRA and dedicated to converting the rest of the world to Catholicism by force, then there might be some merit in the comparison.
Hamas is explicit about its aims. In August 1988 it published the Islamic Covenant, which makes clear its opposition to Israel’s existence in any form. It states that “there is no solution for the Palestinian question except through jihad (holy war)”. Any Muslim who leaves “the circle of struggle with Zionism” is guilty of “high treason”. It calls for the creation of an Islamic republic in Palestine to replace Israel. Muslims should “raise the banner of Allah over every inch of Palestine”.
In a statement released on May 19, after a wave of suicide murders in previous days, Hamas said: “These attacks will continue in all the territories of 1948 and 1967, and we will not stop attacking the Zionist Jewish people as long as any of them remain in our land.” A Hamas member explained to an interviewer last month that: “The Jews have destroyed your Christianity just like they are trying to destroy our Islam. You should read the words of the Prophet. Join us. We do not just want to liberate Palestine. We want all countries to live under the Caliphate. The Islamic army once reached the walls of Vienna. It will happen again.”
If Stephen Pollard were the average waffling egomaniac blogger, the fact that linking to him used to be a combination of an obstacle race and an egg-and-spoon race wouldn’t have mattered all that much. It would have been a pity, but no more than that. As it is, and quite aside from whether you happen to agree or disagree with Pollard’s attitude to all this (personally I’m pretty much in complete agreement), this is heavyweight journalism. Facts are being assembled and deployed, not just impressions or feelings. Those gruesome quotes are for real. This man is not merely clearing his throat and finding his voice. He has found his voice. And he has the regular, big-media columns, like this one, to prove it.
And now, his blog-microphone, so to speak, is also in full working order. Other Pollard pieces, not originally for a big print newspaper, can now also be linked to by the rest of the blogosphere with impunity. But couldn’t one just link directly to pieces like this Hamas piece by going direct to telegraph.co.uk? Why pick on a Pollard piece that would under the old regime have been just as linkable to as it is now? Well, yes, but. But, if one wanted to mention Pollard, one wanted also to mention that Pollard “blog”. Ah, but then, that was a problem because it wasn’t a properly functioning blog, and did you want to be having to explain that every time, …? Aaaargh!!! Too much, in the words of the great Chuck Berry, monkey business. Forget it. Just pretend that Pollard doesn’t exist.
Seriously, that’s what I believe I often did. Even when there was something to link to, in the Telegraph for example, I often didn’t. My basic attitude was: bloody well get it sorted, matey. You may be a big cheese journo and all, but as a blogger, you simply ain’t, but worse, you or whichever blog-ignorant web-designer did it for you are/is pretending that you are. When you are a blogger, then I’ll link to you every day of the week and twice on Sunday (sorry I’ve slipped into A Few Good Men mode and am rather exaggerating, but you get my point I hope). In the meantime, Pollard, you don’t exist.
And if it is the case that I wasn’t the only one who felt like this about the old Pollard blog – and I’ll bet it was and I’ll bet I wasn’t – it could even be that this old “blog” was achieving a minus quantity in terms of Pollard blogosphere impact.
My reason for going on at such length and with such negativity about what was wrong with the old Pollard regime is that the Pollard news now is exactly as good as it was previously bad, and it was bad. Which means that the Pollard news now is very, very good.
Just to hammer home this point about how much readier I am to link to Pollard now than I was under the old dispensation, I am also about to do, now, a couple of pieces linking to this clutch of Pollardiana from my Culture Blog, and to this clutch from my Education Blog.
I’m looking through the music stuff now, and I realise that, entirely because of the old linking problem, I didn’t actually read most of it, because not then being able easily to link to it would have been too frustrating.
So don’t now just read Pollard now. Have a trawl, now or when you can fit it in, through the Pollard archives.
Because Stephen Pollard’s writings are about to count for a whole lot more in the world than they did a week ago.
Thanks for the pointer, although the blog is up and running, we are still finalising the design details…
Adriana,
“Thanks for the pointer, although the blog is up and running, we are still finalising the design details…”
In my browser (IE6 SP1), you have a lot of characters coming up as ? characters. Also, I wonder if yellow on green may be unsuitable for colourblind people…?
Thanks for the kind words. There are some useful comments coming in about the blog – do please let me know of any problems/suggestions (via my site) and I’ll try to act on those which make sense!
–We want all countries to live under the Caliphate. The Islamic army once reached the walls of Vienna. It will happen again.”–
And still Europe won’t listen, we’re moving on to a 2×12 upside the head.
As a libertarian who believes it is imperative to have a deeper understanding of political issues before jumping on ideological bandwagons, I scoff at the narrow-minded logic of Mr. Pollard in the piece that you quoted. Because I have read the piece out of context and have little knowledge of the position that Mr. Pollard has taken in respect of the Israel-Palestine conflict, I will accept that I may not have grasped some more general point he was trying to make. In spite of this, the quoted piece seemed to be advocating the view that Israel, with all its achievements in advancing progressive values in the region in recent years and its rich cultural legacy, should stoop so low so as to engage in the same tit-for-tat cycle of violence that only serves to feed the hatred that extremists -on both sides- capitalise on. Any reasonable person would abhor Hamas and condemn not only their actions but also their extreme ideology founded on hatred and bigotry. However, one must also condemn the Sharon administration for creating a scenario where there is no Palestinian leadership that does believe in peaceful coexistence with Israel. In fact, one can only conclude from the events of the last few years that the current right-wing Israeli administration has implemented the principle of divide-and-conquer. By eliminating any dialogue with moderate elements among the Palestinians and choosing to retaliate for abhorrent acts of terrorism in ways which only seek to invite further retaliatory attacks, it has successfully engineering a scenario where there are only two paths to piece: the plans of the Sharon administration which sell the Palestinians short, or those of the extremists which are simply unacceptable. But to paint a picture where these are the only two choices available would be an exercise in brainwashing or bad faith. Playing up the threat posed by Hamas only serves to further Sharon’s interests, not those of the Israeli people. Instead, the Israelis as a whole need to act as true leaders, given their superior military and economic position. They need to rekindle some sort of hope for disenfranchised Palestinian youths and moderates who have the power to shape a better future for their people and the people of Israel.
syntaxfree:
I agree with you that Israel should not engage in the tit for tat cycle of violence. However, I would argue that this cycle is the product of pressure from outside restricting Israel from fighting this war to the finish. The cycle of violence will be over when the suicide bombers and their supporters are dead. Not before.
The war between Israel and the Palestinians will not be over until one side has achieved victory. The Palestinian leadership defines victory as a Jew-free Mideast, so I don’t think we want the war to end on their terms. That leaves an Israeli victory as the only acceptable end to the cycle of violence.
Killing the enemy’s leaders is always acceptable in wartime. This is war. Time to kill the enemy’s leaders, and enough of their fighters and followers to convince them of defeat. Wars never end any other way. If you want the cycle of violence to end, you need to pick a side and work for its victory. All attempts to talk this war (and most other wars in history) away will fail, as they have failed so far, and will result in more dead on both sides.
I believe the responsibility for a lack of moderate Palestinian leaders lays primarily with Arafat, who has done the usual dictator’s work of killing off or intimidating rivals. I point out that the leadership of the Palestinians was the same before Sharon came to office, and in fact the current intifada dates back to the generous Peres peace proposal. Extremism in the Palestinians is home-grown, and not as much a reaction to the Israelis as you think. The Jews are the excuse, not the cause, of the Pal’s misery.
I’ve written it before and I’ll write it again.
Arafish has been “Chairman/President/whatever”
for almost 10 years and what do the Palis have?
NOTHING.
Maybe if he spent this time creating a working government/business climate and proving that they could handle statehood, things would be different.
So, they’ve wasted untold years agitating for statehood and haven’t laid any groundwork.
Is the land poisoned on their side of the fence? Why is it greener in Israel’s? Just because they move into houses and buildings already there, doesn’t mean they can run the place.
The Kurds have proven they can run their area, why can’t the Palis?
Sandy P. raises a very good point: is the grass just greener in Israel, or is there something inherently flawed in the Palestinian leadership. I believe that Arafat is a major part of the problem, but this does not imply that Israel, Arab countries, Europe, and America are free from criticism.
Arafat is an opportunist dictator who is prepared to go to any length to preserve the legitimacy of his corrupt authority. He has worked to enshrine his image in the minds of Palestinians as one of the de facto embodiment of their Struggle, when in fact this has simply been a strained exercise in self-preservation. One can also wonder whether he might actually be deluded into thinking that he is the saviour of the Palestinian people. After all, he might start to believe his own lies.
A fair question to ask is why the Palestinians are willing to put up with their ineffectual system of leadership if all it has done is to increase their insecurity and exacerbate their poverty. One clue to this came in an Economist piece I came across some time ago. It described life in the Palestinian territories as a totalitarian police state where there is no freedom of expression, and political dissent is not tolerated, including deviations from the Arafat dogma or mounting a challenge to his authority. Compare this with the climate in Israel, where there are democratic institutions and more importantly – the rule of law is upheld.
You will recall that Saddam Hussein won 100% of the vote in his October 2002 election, which certainly owes more to fear of dissent than freedom of expression.
Frustrated with the failings of Arafat to secure peace and economic prosperity, and given the instruments of internal oppression that covertly operate in the territories, it is no surprise that disenfranchised Palestinian youths have turned to militant groups as the only way to affect change.
What has been the Israeli response? One could argue that while it has condemned Arafat’s “leadership”, it has done very little to steer moderates away from extremism by improving conditions in the Palestinian territories. Because of this complacency, it is very convenient to point to the popularity of extremist groups such as Hamas, which call for the destruction of Israel, as being representative of the Palestinian position. This portrays the path to peace as being a choice between the harsh demands of right-wing Israelis, or the violent ends of Palestinian terrorist groups. But this is a false choice, and to believe that these are the only two choices available is an exercise in bad faith. Israel could do more to promote democracy among the Palestinians, or else to encourage alternatives to the dictatorship of Arafat. However, destroying the infrastructure of the Palestinians is not the way to encourage democratic institutions to flourish, which require essential institutions such as security and respect for the rule of law as prerequisites in order to be successful.
And what about the Arab response? Not surprisingly, the fragile leaderships of “puppet” dictators in Arab countries also have an interest in maintaining the status quo because it creates a sense of national cohesiveness that only a common cause (the Struggle) and a common enemy (the Israelis) can provide – think back to McCarthyism. Europe has been afraid of intervening because of a historical guilt complex. The Americans seem to have more important issues to attend to.
Nothing will change until democracy takes root and a real alternative to militancy is presented to the disenfranched – a way out of the poverty and abject conditions.
When we ask who is to blame for the current situation, Arafat is a convenient scapegoat. But if we ask who should take responsibility for creating a better future, we need to point the finger elsewhere.
syntaxfree seems to think that the fault for the lack of moderate Palestinian leadership lies with Israel, for not doing more to improve conditions in Palestine and for oppressing the Palestinian people.
Arafat has exterminated the moderate Palestinian leaders. This is the primary, overriding cause of the dearth of moderates. Israeli action to help moderates would be, and has been, pointless so long as Arafat and his thugs are in charge. The Israelis have been begging for Palestinian moderates to negotiate with for years.
Arafat is the problem; until he is removed, there will be no solution. Only after Arafat is gone it will be time to revisit the issue of what the Israelis could do to help matters along.
R.C. Dean:
It is incorrect to say that I fault Israel for the plight of the Palestinians. This is not the point I was making, as I will explain.
Being at fault and taking responsibility are two different things which can be confused. Let me illustrate with an example. Assume that you are a criminal. As the initiator of an act of crime, your action is the cause, the crime is the consequence, and therefore the fault is yours. If, on the other hand, you are merely a witness to a crime and you are in a position where you are able to stop the crime, then you might feel responsible for assisting the victim — but you are not obliged to help. However, if you do walk away, then you cannot claim the moral high ground, and you will always remain open to criticism for not helping the victim. In order to vindicate your conscience as a witness, you would have to accept responsibility for helping the victim, which nobody can coerce you into doing.
I have merely pointed out that we know full well that Arafat is the culprit. But this is the easy part. If someone at your party drops a glass on the floor and it shatters, then they are clearly at fault. But pointing a finger does nothing to help clean up the mess. That takes leadership.