WESTERN HYPOCRISY WHEN DEFINING INTERNATIONAL RULES

The hypocrisy in international relations, although nothing new, still manages to bewilder and irritate me in equal measures. Are these hypocrites so blind, so indoctrinated, that they don't see the nonsense that spews from their mouths? Or are they very much aware of the double standards that form the basis of their rhetoric but hope the public won't pick up on it? There have been some great recent examples of such hypocrisy.

A few weeks back French and American political and social commentators were lining up to take a shot at Britain's perceived “crisis of democracy” over parliaments no vote to military strikes in Syria. Apparently international law must be respected at all times, and any violators must be severely punished. Except, what they actually mean is that certain people and countries must respect international rules, where others need not concern themselves with such things. It's telling when you see big political figures such as US President Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry replace the more objective term “international law” with the subjective “international norms”. But, as big violators of the former, what choice do countries like the US have but to change the terminology they use to deflect from the reality of their foreign policy.

Politicians and political commentators, particularly from the US and Israel, but Britain too, have been quick to dismiss the newly elected Iranian president's pledged willingness to discuss a settlement over the nuclear issue. Here the hypocrisy is as acute as ever. Often reference to Iran's violation of a UN resolution is quoted in the same conversation that mentions Israel's security; yet rarely are Israel's constant abuses of international law and disregard for UN resolutions mentioned. In that region, India, Pakistan, and even more relevant, Israel, are all allowed to stockpile nuclear weapons, whilst the international community headed by the US refuse Iran that same right.

Another recent example of the use of double standards in international relations was the grounding of the plane carrying Bolivian President Evo Morales. Spain, France, Italy and Portugal, at the insistence of Washington, all denied his plane access to airspace over their respective countries, forcing him to land in Vienna. Whistle blower and to most outside the US, hero Edward Snowden, responsible for the recent NSA leaks, was suspected of being on-board. The fact that this turned out to be incorrect is irrelevant. What is disturbing is that the US and it's allies feel they have the right to force a plane carrying a democratically elected president to land in order for them to search that plane. Can you imagine, and I mean really try to envisage, a group of Latin American countries trying to force Air Force One, with president on-board, to land at a place of their choosing so they can carry out a thorough search. We all know what consequences would likely follow – the US would severely punish the perpetrators, and quite possibly, militarily.

Hypocrisy seems to be a key theme that runs through the foreign polices of some Western powers. Is there any wonder then that countries like Iran or North Korea are reluctant to engage with such countries? Countries that criticise them for their human rights record yet at the same time cosy up to Saudi Arabia, probably one of the worst abusers of human rights out there. What are the rest of the world seeing when they look at the US or Britain? - Aggressive, untrustworthy, and extremely hypocritical countries – and it's really not that hard to understand why they have such a perception!  

ANNE FRANK AND THE HOLOCAUST - THE BEST AND WORST OF HUMANITY

Having just read Anne Frank's diary I cannot help but ponder over questions regarding the Nazi persecution of European Jews during WW2, and of racial and religious hatred in general. In many ways Anne Frank was a slightly unique teenage girl: witty and intelligent beyond her years; Anne was constantly in a mode of self-assessment and self-improvement, not just academically but morally. Her descriptions of both the banal and the exceptional living conditions in which she found herself living under were vivid due to her writing abilities and philosophising mind. But, in other ways, Anne was a typical teenager with typical feelings of confusion, angst and alienation. What child of that age doesn't feel misunderstood by their parents, and by adults in general. It was this mixture of both her uniqueness and ordinariness that helps to draw the reader into her world, and leaves you pondering questions of humanity: the kindness and courage of some verses the cruelness and hatred of others.

The risks that many people took to hide and protect Jews in Nazi occupied Europe, as well as other persecuted peoples, was nothing short of heroic. To put themselves on the line in that way, knowing in full the penalties that await such people if caught, shows a beautiful mix of compassion and courage that makes you both sad and hopeful all at the same moment. Equally, Anne Frank's desire to live as full a life as possible whilst in hiding, and her commitment to do the same once the occupation was over, while all that time living in constant fear of capture, torture and death, is inspiring and heart-warming. When faced with such cruelty as was commonplace under Nazi rule, and also for those who unfortunately fell under imperial Japanese rule too, it's comforting to know so many people fought back, and not just with violence but with kindness too.

But what drives people to commit such abominable acts in the first place. The fact that a large group of people, in this case the Germans, can be so systematically cruel to another group of people, the Jews, is horrifying, and you can't help but wonder what horrors await us in the future. Having said that, we know many Germans at the time were repulsed by Hitler and the Nazi ideology, some fighting back while others were coerced or intimidated into playing along. Nevertheless, there was big support for Hitler among the German population, certainly at the beginning of the war, and anti-Semitism was rife. It's simply to easy and dismissive to label these people as brutes and animals, and it gets us nowhere in trying to understand what caused the support for this ideology.

At the time of Hitler's ascension to power, Germany was on it's knees economically, causing many hardships for ordinary people. We now know from experience that when people are suffering they often look for someone to blame. Extreme elements of society exploit this, often by pushing their own prejudices onto other people by blaming those who are different to them for societies ills. Hitler was clever and charismatic, and he seemed to be able to offer the Germans a way out of the mess they found themselves in. He gave them someone to blame and fight, someone they could hate - a common enemy. Unfortunately, a combination of Nazi propaganda and a feeling of helplessness among many sections of the German people, caused a nation to come together to fight for a deluded ideology that sickens me to my very core.

If we can agree that people aren't inherently cruel, born either good or evil with no room for movement between the two, then there must be cause for hope and optimism for the future. If we know that what drives people to do good or bad mostly depends on their environment, then as humans we must do our best to discourage unfavourable conditions, like poverty, and encourage socially desirable ones, like equality. We will never be able to entirely eradicate human cruelty from our repertoire, but lessening the conditions where this behaviour thrives would hopefully reduce the chances of us seeing such large scale atrocities like those we have witnessed in the past.    

North Korea - Aggressive or Misunderstood?

There's disconcerting sounds coming out of North Korea right now. It's hopefully all bravado but Kim Jong-un, like his farther before him, strikes me as a megalomaniac. A megalomaniac who is now bored and wants to play armies. Of course any attack of sizeable proportion against the South, and any attack whatsoever against the US, would be suicide and I'm sure that he and his cohorts realise this. Still, it's worrying times for the region.

However, we must be careful when judging Kim Jong-un and North Korea, as our Western-centric perspective, often formed from biased media reporting, can sometimes hamper our ability to see the world as they do. Clearly there is a repressive regime in place and for the average citizen life is hard due to a lack of some of life's more basic necessities such as food and water, as well as healthcare, eduction and jobs. But, they are also faced with some external worries: they live next door to their well armed enemy neighbour; and they also live close to some state of the art army and naval bases that happen to belong to the US, probably the most aggressive country in the world, with a track record of militarily intervening in countries both overtly and covertly. When you start looking at it from this perspective, you start to see that North Korea probably feels insecure and vulnerable, singled out for sanctions and bullied by the international community, with very few friends in the world. It's quite common for someone who perceives injustice in the way they are treated by others to lash out, and this might well help to explain North Korea's behaviour, at least in part. That's not to excuse their behaviour, but it would be helpful going forward if this was taken into account when dealing with this rouge state.   

5 REASONS WHY THE IRAQ WAR WAS A MISTAKE

There are still people out there who continue to defend Tony Blair's decision to follow the US into war with Iraq. The reasons given for their pro-war stance are varied, but the most common tends to centre around the argument that the removal of Saddam has put an end to genocide and oppression, paving the way for democracy and freedom. This reasoning does not really paint an accurate picture of what life is like now for many Iraqis. Nor does it take into account the high price paid to remove Saddam. Here are 5 reasons why the war was a big mistake:

1. Legality of war 

Under international war, there are certain conditions that must be met before engaging in conflict with another country. These conditions were not met, a point that was not lost on the majority of the international community, and a reason why a subsequent vote in the UN favoured giving weapons inspectors more time to gather evidence, rather than using force. I recently read someone's argument for going to war which stated that we shouldn't let “legality” get in the way of doing what is morally right. There way be times when a quote such as this holds some validity, certainly in regards to some authoritarian regimes or to some archaic laws that are no longer relevant to the modern world. But, when it comes to international law, to ignore certain laws in order to justify acts of aggression only serves to encourage others to commit crimes if they deem it beneficial. How can we turn around and criticise a county who flaunts the law when we are also guilty of this.

2. The rationale for going to war was based on lies 

Many lies were bandied about during the build up to war, with Tony Blair and George Bush at the helms of their respective governments being the worst culprits. Many experts had doubts regarding the quality of the intelligence being cited as justification, Hans Blix being one example. But since then the information has been made public, making it quite clear that a mixture of lies and exaggerated truths were used to encourage public support for the war. Did Saddam Hussein have connections to Al-Qaeda. Did he possess WMDs? Was he a threat to us or our allies? Of course, we now all know that the answers to these questions are no. This therefore brings us on to the next point; what were the actual motives for war.

3. Immoral motives 

Since Iraq was not a threat, and Blair and Bush both stated at the beginning that regime change was not their objective, ruling out reasons based on humanitarian grounds and stability (or though this was later stated as an objective once the security threat could no longer be wheeled out as justification), then what on earth could have been driving our leaders to send our troops to invade a foreign land? Well, looking at who benefited most from the war, that is to say, mainly Western companies involved in oil, construction, security, as well as arms manufacturers and suppliers, then it's not hard to come to the conclusion that our motives were not born out of the highest of moral standards.

4. Death and suffering 

Civilian deaths related to the war are estimated to be anywhere between over 100,000 at the very conservative end, to over 600,000. Either way, the statistics are depressing and do not include long term injuries, both physical and mental. Then, added to that are the deaths and injuries that the coalition and Iraqi troops sustained. I know some feel little sympathy for Saddam's forces but they had the right, under international law, to resist foreign invaders. And whilst some troops were loyal to Saddam and/or Iraq, many fought out of fear for him. Can all this combined suffering we worth the removal of Saddam and his regime? As we know, the suffering continued long after regime change, and continues to this day.

5. The aftermath (the suffering continues) 

While some lives have undoubtedly improved post Saddam, like those of the Kurds in northern Iraq, many areas of the country are less stable and the quality of life has worsened when compared to Saddam's reign. Sectarian violence, unemployment, lack of education and access to healthcare are all common complaints, while woman's rights have also taken a step backwards.

As an outsider looking in, ask yourself, would you have preferred to live in Iraq pre or post regime change? I know in terms of my safety I would be better of picking the former. For Iraqis the answer to this question would depend on factors such as where they live or of what religion persuasion they are. What is clear is that for a great many number of Iraqis life has got much harder, and shows little sign of improvement any time soon.  

AM I AN ANTI-CAPITALIST? OR SHOULD A MORE ETHICAL CAPITALISM BE THE GOAL?

Am I an anti-capitalist? This is a question I've been asked on several occasions, and not just by others, I also ask myself this same question. The truth is, I don't think it matters if I am or not, capitalism is the system we've got and for the time being it's here to stay. What I want to see is a more ethical, fairer capitalism. Maybe by the very nature of capitalism there will always be winners and losers, but there must be a way, probably through some sort of regulation agreed on a global scale, to increase the amount of winners and address the issue of inequality by reducing the wealth gap between the rich and the poor.

A multinational company that makes huge profits while their workers on the factory floor don't make a living wage, inhibiting them to adequately feed their families or send their children to school, is quite frankly, sickening. Capitalism seems to encourage some of humankind's less admirable qualities such as greed and selfishness, therefore, is it not common sense to try and restrain those who see no problem in profiting at other people's expense?

There are clearly some areas, for example, such as water, electric, gas and other essentials, that should NEVER be privatised in order to protect the public from unethical practices that can have a devastating effect on people's lives. Even in Britain we are seeing utility companies making record profits whilst continually increasing their prices, consequently pushing more and more families deeper into poverty. Mass privatisation of state-owned assets is always a mistake, as we have seen time and time again. But where and when the private sector is in control, and there are some good arguments as to why they should always play a massive role locally and globally, then there should always be safeguards in place that affords the public some protection from those who are more inclined to do business in a less scrupulous manner.   

Haredi Rabbis Child Abuse Shame - Britain's Hidden Child Abuse

Child abuse cases are always shocking whatever the circumstances. But, when the abuser is supposedly a person of high moral standing and in a position of trust, the level of deceit that goes with the actual abuse tends to add fuel to the flames of anger. Dispatches, Channel 4's flagship investigative current affairs programme, recently aired a brilliant documentary exposing Rabbis within the Jewish Haredi community discouraging victims of child abuse from going to the police, preferring to deal with matters in-house and within the community. We later find out that what is meant by dealing with matters within the community is to do very little.

The Rabbis featured showed no interest in gaining justice for the victim and no interest in protecting children from future abuse. It's about time we stopped assuming that a religious man is necessarily a man of morals. Time and time again it has been proven that the former can lack the latter. And vice versa, one can be moral and yet have no religious faith whatsoever, this is a point I think that needs making. Child abusers should be punished accordingly, and so should their enablers, whether a rabbi, a priest, or anyone else that sits in a position of authority and fails to adequately protect the vulnerable under their care.

If you haven't already I highly recommend watching the documentary:   

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/dispatches/4od#3470982

Iraq 10 Years On

10 years on from Iraq and still Blair is a free man. No trial, no charge, not even an arrest. The invasion of Iraq has probably got to be the biggest crime my country has committed since my birth. Certainly the most straight forward case of war crimes and breach of international law. How can we expect people across the world to obey the rule of law when we flaunt it so frivolously?

And what legacy have we left Iraq? Some argue that although the motives may have been dubious, we have removed a tyrant and installed democracy, leaving the country in a better state than before the invasion. I cannot see this. I see a corrupt government using the banner of democracy to hide their wealth accumulation. I see constant sectarian violence terrorising the innocent and vulnerable. I see a lack of eduction and jobs. Saddam Hussein was a vicious dictator, few would disagree, I certainly wouldn't. But, are the normal citizens of Iraq generally better off now than before the invasion? With the exception of the Kurds, the evidence seems to suggest, NO.

It was wrong and immoral to attack and invade Iraq, and the mess we left the country in is a crime in its self. I do not feel good about belonging to a country that has committed such terrible acts. To see Blair, among others, on trial at The Hague, would go some way to addressing the injustices the Iraqi people have endured. It would also send a clear message to the international community and discourage any further abuses. Unfortunately this is unlikely to happen.

It looks quite a distinct possibility that Iran may be the next victim. Iran is constantly vilified in the media, and it's true that the regime there is brutal and oppressive, but they show no physical aggression towards their neighbours or beyond, they are not a threat to world peace, not like we, the US and Israel are. Hopefully, with much of the British population feeling let down by are exploits in Iraq, public opinion against any involvement in such an act will be strong enough to dissuade the government in participating. I'm sure the streets will see unprecedented numbers of protesters if the people are ignored.      

Drug Test For Every Employee

There is a school of thought at the moment that as part of the fight against drugs, every single employee should be drug tested at their place of work. This proposition seems to have gained at least some popular support, although as far as I can tell no politician is pushing for this yet. Leaving aside any possible breach of human rights and invasion of privacy, which is not to be taken lightly, this seems to me to be an ill-considered proposal which would have deeply damaging social implications.

Of course, the idea is that employees who take drugs will reconsider doing so, due to the possibility of loosing their job through being tested positive at work. This may well be the case for some occasional drug takers, but what happens to those, for example, who are regular cannabis smokers and who are not willing to forgo one of their pleasures? Estimates of adult cannabis usage in the UK put the figures anywhere between 6% - 9% of the population. Even if we take a very conservative estimate, that's well over 3 million cannabis users of working age. That's potentially 3 million people, many of whom are good and productive workers, now unemployed and claiming benefits. And the perverse thing is that takers of harder drugs, such as ecstasy and cocaine, have a better chance of keeping their jobs as their drugs of choice take a much shorter period of time to work their way out of the body.

What a scandal this would lead to if passed in law. Employers would loose many of their best workers, those who lost their job would find it extremely difficult to find new employment, and the drain on our already very tight public funds would be immense. I'm not condoning anyone going into work under the influence of any drug, including alcohol, but as long as an employee is doing their job to a satisfactory level, is it really of any concern to the employer what they do outside of work? 

Mali and the War On Terrorism

Jihadists, Islamic extremists, Islamic fundamentalists, or whatever label you want to apply to them, are again headline news due to increased activity, this time in northern Mali where French troops, with the help of Malian troops, have been given the unenvious task of liberating towns from Al-Qaeda occupation. As each town falls to French forces we learn of the brutality handed out by these terrorists to the native populations, particularly the black residents, where torture and murder seems to have been used not just to keep order, but in a self-righteous sadistic manner synonymous with Al-Qaeda.

Whether or not you think European involvement is the correct course of action, there is little doubting the possible threat to peace these terrorists could cause, not just to the region but, the world as a whole. Having said that, as always happens, the only thought is how to eliminate the threat and there is no discussion on why this threat exists in the first place. Why is it that these Islamic extremist groups seem to have an endless pool of enthusiastic recruits that are frothing at the mouth at the thought of carrying out such despicable acts, particularly in regards to the West and their supporters? Why is there so much hate and resentment aimed at the West? The main stream media finds the answer to these questions too uncomfortable so chooses not to ask them.

Mali, like many other African and Middle Eastern countries, all have two relevant common characteristics: They are oil producers and they have mass poverty. Then there is a third factor that comes into play: Many of them have corrupt governments that allow Western multinationals to make ridiculously large profits from their oil reserves. How must this look to the native populations? Often living in dire poverty, lacking food, water, housing, employment, eduction, and probably most importantly – hope, it's enough to turn anyone bitter. They have practically nothing, yet through stealing their natural resources Western multinationals turn over huge profits. It's not hard to see the link between terrorism, poverty and the theft of resources.

If we want to reduce terrorism we have three options, along side the use of force. One, stop profiting from other countries resources, which I think we can all agree is unlikely to happen. Two, eradicate or reduce poverty in those countries. Three, continue to exploit their resources but use a fair amount of the profit to fight poverty in their respective countries by funding housing, education, infrastructure etc. If we ignore these options, and I'm sure we will, global terrorism will not go away.    

The World: 50 Years Down the Line

I'm sure that even people with the most positive of dispositions find it hard to look beyond the near future with any real optimism. Maybe humans by nature tend not to think that far ahead anyway, preferring to focus on the here and now instead, which is understandable. Western governments and multinationals are certainly very limited in their long term planning, with the latter prioritising short term profit above everything else. Attitudes in the East, particularly China, seem to be much more adept at long term planning, sometimes thinking many generations ahead. But, it is this general lack of consideration for the future that further exacerbates the problems that the planet faces and will continue to face with increasing urgency.

It is problems that we are already confronted with which in my reckoning will, without urgent attention, cause untold suffering to the world, barely leaving any corners untouched. In fact, these particular problems are already having a devastating affect on some peoples lives. Over-population, diminishing natural resources, and climate change. These three issues are not unrelated to each other, they work in combination, one fuelling the other. Neither are these issues foreign or obscure, they are well known to everyone, certainly throughout the developed world, maybe to a lesser extent in the developing world where poverty reduction seems more relevant.

To many the world is already over-populated, with many of people's basic needs such as food and water not being met. Whether you think that this is a population problem or just bad management of the earth's resources, it's hard to deny that if the current population growth trends continue, we will certainly be unable to provide for massive parts of the world's population, with increased famine being just one of the awful consequences we will be confronted with. We have limited natural resources, whether that be oil, gas, minerals or fish stocks, we all know this. Yet we continue to largely ignore this fact, choosing to up our consumption of such resources, while limiting our investment in greener renewable alternatives. Through increased Co2 levels, animal agriculture, deforestation, as well as many other factors, we are affecting climate change which is upsetting the natural balance of the planet.

It is the combination of these three ever-growing problems, over-population, dwindling natural resources, and climate change, together with what seems to be mankind's short-sightedness and thirst for confrontation and conflict, that will bring about such terrifying consequences: major natural disasters and large scale war.

Extreme weather patterns due to a warming in the earth's temperature and a rise in sea levels, are something we are already familiar with, but these are likely to increase in volume and severity in the future. With droughts, hurricanes, and monsoons killing more and more people, as well as wildlife. There is also likely to be a rise in volcano eruptions and earthquakes. The world, simply put, will become much less hospitable, making survival an uphill battle.

Probably more worrying, at least in terms of the immediate destruction it can cause, is a world that turns to war in pursuit of the world's dwindling resources. This is not simply paranoia or an over-the-top prediction of an apocalyptic end to the world. The history of humankind is littered with war and violence, even our more recent history is no exception, with advanced modern countries showing the same disregard for human life and lust for destruction. The most striking of differences the technologically driven modern world has compared with the past is the array and destructiveness of its weapons, not least nuclear weapons which have now become prolific.

Some argue that nuclear weapons, which now several countries possess, have brought about a certain amount of stability. I believe there is some truth in this, after all, one country tends not to attack another country if they are able to respond with a nuclear threat. But given that the worlds growing population, who have a propensity for war, is running out of resources, it's doesn't take much of a leap to argue that nations may engage in war over these resources. I would like to be optimistic about our future here on earth, but the logical part of my brain tells me there will be wars, continuous, brutal and probably nuclear world wars. Unless we get are shit together, the world in 50 years time will be no picnic!  

A Shattered Faith in the Liberal Democrats and UK Politics

Today was the final nail in the coffin, the Liberal Democrats will no longer get my support. It was looking more and more unlikely that they would receive my vote in the next election, but this most recent attack aimed at the poorer and more disadvantaged echelons of society in the form of benefit cuts, is the final straw. My hope that the Liberal Democrats would somehow restrain the Conservatives and their elitist policies did not pan out, showing no conviction in protecting what are supposed to be the party's core values. While the disadvantaged, who can not be held accountable for the financial mess we are in, are attacked and demonised, the Liberal Democrats seem to either actively support Conservative policies or fall into a state of inertia.

We can expect more of the same over the next couple of years, inequality and poverty will continue to increase, bringing with it all manner of social ills and unrest. The Coalition will continue to blame the economy and financial deficit for the crimes they commit against their own people. Labour will of course be loud in opposition, and maybe it's true that if they were in government the cuts would be less harsh, but what else can they offer? They have to take a fair chunk of the blame for this financial mess which has allowed the Conservatives to act which such cruelty. Labour's record on human rights and civil liberties are probably worse than that of the Conservatives, and their aggressive foreign policy is abhorrent, thus to me, they are no alternative.

So what voting alternatives have we got for the next election? I'm sure UKIP and the BNP will continue to pick up votes, these more extreme parties seem to do well when society as a whole is suffering, but lets hope not. Now that my faith in the Liberal Democrats has been shattered, it is only the Green Party that I see as a viable alternative. Their policies and values are very appealing, but it is their lack of experience and political savvy where I have doubts. Having said that, it's not as if they are going to find themselves in government by the next election. A gradual rise in popularity would seem more likely, allowing them to pick seats up here and there, gaining experience and influence as they go. My faith in British politics is at an all time low, it's hard to see any other than the three current mainstream parties dominating for the foreseeable future. No wonder pessimism is taking hold.  

Israel and Mainstream Media Bias

Recently the world's media focused once again on Israel and the Palestinians, and once again the debate over who's right and who's wrong got mainstream attention. Unfortunately much of the mainstream media was biased, as is the norm, essentially providing a pro-Israeli narrative when ever possible. Several years ago, before I took up an interest in this conflict and when my knowledge was much more limited, the only information I received on this issue was through such media outlets as the BBC and other daily tabloid newspapers. Through their distorted reporting I formed the opinion that the Israelis were the victims in all this, the target of unprovoked Arab aggression, with the Palestinians leading the terrorist fight to expel all Jews from the region. I couldn't really be blamed for my naive views at that time, how was I to know the reality of this decades old conflict without deviating from the mainstream media and digging a little deeper.

Of course there is biased reporting on the behalf of the Palestinian cause and both sides have committed terrible acts, but there are clear facts that show that one side is dominated and oppressed by the other. UN reports and repeated resolutions condemning Israeli violations of international law are one clear indicator of what's really happening on the ground. Human rights groups are another great source of information as they are less concerned with the political situation and focus solely on the human suffering whether Israeli or Palestinian. When looking to sources other than the mainstream media and when you take the standard British political stance with a pinch of salt, you soon become horrified and angry at not only the suffering that the Palestinians endure, but also at the way many Western governments and media conglomerates show bias towards, and therefore support for, Israeli abuses of international law. The reason why they show such unwavering support is also another interesting and disturbing topic, one which I won't go into now.

On a positive note looking forward, the British public seem to be following their European counterparts in starting to understand the reality of life for the Palestinian population under Israeli occupation and oppression. The reasons for this I can not easily explain, but I expect it has something to so with the way individual activists and organisations use ever-evolving social media tools such as Twitter and Facebook, as well as the increasing amount of alternative news and information websites, allowing the general public to access broader, diverse and more up-to-date news. Although the spread of information in this manner is not always accurate and verifiable, it allows alternative ideas to be spread, often igniting the interest of the receiver which then prompts them to delve further into the subject using more credible sources. People are no longer restricted to just a few news media outlets who provide propaganda for the political and business elite, they are now often exposed to a wide range of views that contradict the status quo which I think will only help to spread social equality throughout Israel, and indeed the world.  

MEP Ashley Fox Backs Apartheid Regime

I recently emailed MEP Ashley Fox regarding the vote on the EU-Israel Protocol on Conformity Assessment and Acceptance of Industrial Products (ACAA). The vote takes place on October 23^rd 2012 and if implemented would essentially mean better trade conditions between the EU and Israel. I asked Ashley Fox to show support for Palestinian human rights by voting against this agreement.

Below is his response:

Thank you for your e-mail. Please allow me to be absolutely clear on what is happening.

The European Union is discussing a protocol to an already existing agreement between the EU and Israel. I believe that refusing consent to this Protocol would cause economic damage to both the EU and Israel at this time of international financial crisis. It would also affect the EU's ability to project positive political influence within Israel for promoting lasting peace in the region. I support EU trade agreements with both the Palestinian and Israeli Authorities and will continue to do so.

I believe than an eventual progression from the 1993 Oslo Peace Accords towards a two state solution will lead to final and comprehensive settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict based on implementation of the Road Map with land for peace swaps. This would create a peaceful and sovereign Palestinian State, with Israel enjoying secure and recognised borders. Each country should enjoy normal relations and capacity for trade with its neighbours.

I support the PA led by President Abbas and Prime Minister Fayyad as the legitimate government of the Palestinians. Any sovereign future Palestinian state would have to be able to reign in terrorist groups such as Hamas, which has to date refused to uphold the Oslo Peace Accords.

The Association Agreement with Israel (signed in 1995 and in force from 2000) does not include either the occupied territories, or goods originating in these territories. Indeed, goods originating from the Israeli occupied territories are not entitled to preferential tariff treatment under Community law.

I believe that Palestine should be governed by the Palestinian people. I have sought assurances from the European Commission that any free trade agreement with Israel includes safeguards to prevent the economic exploitation of the West Bank and Gaza territories.

I believe that to effectively isolate Israel will only exacerbate the problems in the region. Trade allows the flow of goods and with them ideas. It allows us to influence Israel in ways that would not be possible if we stopped trading with them. Indeed, European Commission chief Jose Manuel Barroso visited Palestine in July this year to show that support.

Israel has behaved appallingly in many ways, but not without provocation. The only way to change this behaviour is through trade and 'soft' influence. Forcing Israel into an isolated corner has not worked in the past and will not work in the future. I will continue to support free trade agreements, with proper safeguards, with both Palestine and Israel.

Yours sincerely,

Ashley Fox

Unsatisfied with his response which showed either a lack of compassion or a large amount of ignorance, I replied:

Dear Mr Fox

Thank you for replying to my email regarding the ACAA agreement. However, I feel I must reply in response to some of the points you have made as they are inaccurate.

1.) “refusing consent to this Protocol would cause economic damage to both the EU and Israel”.

Although refusing consent may cause some minor adverse effects to the economy of the EU, any negative consequences to the Israeli economy can only be a positive outcome, as this would highlight two important points: Firstly, that we are unwilling to improve trade conditions with an apartheid regime that consistently breaks international law through the abuse of human rights and the occupation of Palestinian land. Secondly, as trade with Europe and probably the world will be hampered, Israel's economy, and therefore it's people, will suffer as a consequence, possibly causing them pause for thought regrading their harmful policies.

2.)  “the EU's ability to project positive political influence within Israel”.

Israel currently enjoys brilliant trade relations with countries such as ourselves and the US. This has only helped to enable Israel to implement and maintain its system of oppression. If we improve Israel's trade prospects what kind of message would that really send? Can't you see that by doing this we will be condoning their despicable policies and actions?

3.)  “Any sovereign future Palestinian state would have to be able to reign in terrorist groups such as Hamas, which has to date refused to uphold the Oslo Peace Accords.”

Hamas have committed some abhorrent crimes, I would not question this. But so have Israel and on a much larger scale. Israel is a terrorist state; anyone who has an interest in this issue and is without bias, knows this. Assassinations, indiscriminate killings and sometimes the intended killing of civilians, torture, the demolition of civilian structures ( houses in particular), detention without trial (including children), these are all done systematically and on a regular basis by the state of Israel. Therefore, do you not agree that if Hamas has to be reigned in, so does Israel?

As far as upholding the Oslo Peace Accords, why are you not also referring to Israel's continued illegal settlement building, as well as the crimes just mentioned above?

4.)  “The Association Agreement with Israel does not include either the occupied territories , or goods originating in these territories.”

This may be true but many illegal Israeli settlement goods are sold throughout Britain, many through the big supermarket chains. Like I said, we already have good trade relations with Israel, and so far we have not used this as a lever to affect change. Why is this? You state that “to isolate Israel will only exacerbate the problems in the region”, but how much worse can it get for the Palestinians? Didn't boycotts and sanctions help to bring apartheid in South Africa to an end?

5.)  “Israel has behaved appallingly in many ways, but not without provocation.”

I think you would do better to turn this sentence around – Palestinians have behaved appallingly in many ways, but not without provocation. Israel is a prosperous country, many of the population have access to good healthcare, education and jobs. This is not true of Palestine, where the majority of the population live in poverty with very little hope for a better future. Even the most basic and essential supplies sent to them by the international community are often stopped from reaching them by the Israel. It is this lack of hope and desperation that sometimes leads Palestinians to commit horrific acts of violence.

Thank you for taking the time to read this email. I would very much appreciate a reply to the points I have set out. I look forward to your response.

Yours sincerely,

I now await his response, fully aware that he will go ahead and vote yes to this agreement anyway. It will be interesting to see how he justifies voting yes when answering the questions I put to him.  

Film “Innocence of Muslims” Sparks Outrage Throughout the Islamic World

Anti-West protests throughout many Muslim countries this last week or so have had a slight end of the world feel about them. The extremely tacky and distasteful “Innocence of Muslims”, a short film that was clearly made with the intent to antagonise Muslims the world round, has had it's desired effect. Although it would be accurate to state that it was only a fraction of the worlds Muslims who were out there protesting, and a even smaller number who turned to violence, I still felt disappointed and concerned at the reaction, especially considering these were largely grown men. The people responsible for this video are clearly contemptible, but why they would want to offend so many people in this way is unclear at this point. But, however distasteful or offensive we might find this video, we must defend freedom of speech at all costs. To have something banned simply because we don't agree with it's tone or message would be to regress as a society, possibly the start of a very slippery slope that leads to a less civilised world.

As a big fan and regular viewer of animated sitcoms such as Family Guy and South Park, I've seen numerous episodes where they poke fun at characters from the Christian faith, namely God and Jesus. I'm aware of some discontent from some faith groups, particularly in the US, but these sitcoms largely go about their business with little hassle and serious threats to their lives are pretty rare. So why do Christians in the West largely ignore what could be seen as an attack on their faith? And why is the reaction so different throughout the Muslim world? I don't see religion as a progressive force in society in general, but in the West Christian views seemed to have mellowed and have accepted that people are free to criticise whenever they see fit. Many Christians, I imagine, laugh along to the same episodes as I do, seeing no conflict in laughing at parts of their faith while still holding that faith strong and close to them.

Maybe the intensity of the protests throughout the Arab world can be partly blamed on the conditions they find themselves living in, using their religion as an outlet for dissatisfaction relating to the lack of democracy, lack of freedom of speech, lack of education and jobs, and so forth. Whatever the reasons for the violence it can never be justified. If religion is to be taken seriously in the 21^st century then scenes like this need to be avoided. People like me who have no faith are prepared to accept and even respect other people's faith, but not when it acts in such a destructive and violent manner.     

American Presidential Elections 2012 – The Lesser of Two Evils

As per usual, elections in the most powerful and influential country in the world has more to do with personality than policy. To become president you must be wholesome, an all American guy who's Christian faith is unshakable and the basis on which all decisions must be made whilst in office. Oh, and you need money, and lots of it. It's really all about voting for the lesser evil, that's all you can hope for. Obama gave the world hope for change, unfortunately he fell short on most issues, including on his promise to close Guantanamo Bay. To be fair he was always up against it, the US system of governance is set up in such a way that it's virtually impossible to change the way big business and certain powerful individuals and groups dominate, at the detriment not only to Americans but the world as a whole.

Obama may not have been the ray of hope we were looking for, but next to Mitt Romney and the destructive and uncaring policies of the Republican Party, he's heaven sent, here to save us from the devil himself. If the American public is crazy enough to vote Romney in, and judging by their track record it's a real possibility, the world will becomes that little bit more unstable. I truly believe this. You can add him to the list of moral-less trigger happy war lords such as Reagan, Bush Sr. and Bush Jnr. All dreadful people who have done dreadful things, without a hint of remorse for their total lack of respect for human life.

As the elections start to build steam, the mud slinging will intensify, each concentrating on the others personality flaws, with policy a secondary issue at best. If Americans decide to ignore this charade and concentrate purely on policy, a little scratching at the surface will reveal what most people with even a partial interest in world politics will know: that Mitt Romney and the Republican Party are there to serve their own interests, that of a small elite of extremely wealthy Americans who's only concern is in maintaining the status quo, with little or no concern in the well-being of their own people, and certainly not the well-being of other nations. Having said that, do the Democrats differ greatly in what they can offer Americans and the world? Well, in my opinion they do at least at times seem to show some humility to their own as well as to the world, but as I mentioned earlier, it's all about choosing the lesser of two evils. That's probably the kindest thing to be said of the Democratic Party.  

KINGFISHER AIRLINES - WHERE'S MY MONEY?

Earlier this year KINGFISHER AIRLINES decided to cancel my return flight to the UK, leaving me stranded in Thailand. (Granted, there are worse places you could be stranded). I was told that due to Kingfisher cancelling all flights from Thailand to the UK, they were unable to book me onto an alternative flight. STA Travel, the agency with whom I bought the ticket through, informed me I would receive a partial refund on the unused part of the ticket, but they could not tell me when this would be actioned. The only option open to me was to book myself onto another flight with a different airline, which is exactly what I did, costing me an extra £400 on top of the £600 plus I'd already spent on the original ticket.

It's now over 6 months later and I am yet to receive either a partial refund or a reimbursement for the cost of the extra ticket. Irritated is putting it mildly, these are not the most affluent of times, I want my money!

Every time I contact STA Travel to enquire about my refund I am simply told that they have not yet received it, so therefore they are unable to pass it on. When I contacted Kingfisher I was informed that all correspondence must go through the broker with whom I purchased the ticket with – STA Travel. See the pattern?!!!

I'm getting the distinct feeling I may never receive any recompense, but maybe I've just become too cynical? Kingfisher are clearly out of line here, I wonder if this is a common complaint with this particular airline, or am I just unlucky? Or maybe this is endemic to the airline industry as a whole?

I can't help but feel that STA Travel are less than sympathetic and wonder if they could be doing more for my cause? Although, I only have positive things to say about STA regarding my previous dealings and transactions with them.

I've now registered a complaint with the Civil Aviation Authority, the only option left to me as far as I can fathom. I'll keep you posted with any updates. If anyone has any advice or experience concerning this or similar airline issues, please comment below.

Thailand: My Top Ten

Compiling a list of what I considered to be my top ten Thailand destinations was not as straight forward a task as I had originally assumed. There seemed to be two main factors which when I considered the list would cause me to alter the ranking of some of the destinations: One being my mood i.e., was I looking for total peace and quiet with good snorkelling nearby, or was I feeling more inclined to go mountain trekking or sightseeing. Two, how long was I planning on staying in one particular destination, e.g., if I had decided I wanted to settle somewhere for a couple of months or so, I would probably avoid somewhere with poor internet access and few eating options. So with the list as it stands, I have tried to factor in the two variables just mentioned, and I have created what I think is a fairly accurate top ten.

10 - Koh Tao

Koh Tao is a small island located in the Gulf of Thailand, roughly 70km east of the mainland between Chumphon and Suratthani. Turtle Island, as Koh Tao is sometimes referred to, lives up to its reputation for great diving and vibrant night-life. Nice beaches, clear water and reasonably priced accommodation is certainly another factor that helps attracts the crowds. On Sairee Beach, the most popular beach on the island, there are plenty of bars and restaurants, regular beach parties with their customary fire shows, and a community of dive instructors who seem to have a passion for their chosen vocation, as well as for alcohol. One small complaint would be in regards to sun bathing, which wasn't always easy due to what seemed like a constant high tide, leaving only a short stretch of sand in places. The beautiful Koh Nangyuan, which consists of three very small islands connected by a single stretch of white sand, is a short boat trip away, and I would highly recommend spending some time there. Diving, which seems to be the main pulls to the island, is highly rated and everyone I spoke to seemed more than satisfied with their experience, with sightings of Whale Sharks commonplace. With only two visits under by belt, and one of those being a day trip from Koh Phangan, I only have limited experience of Koh Tao, but it still makes it into my top ten.  

9 - Koh Chang

There are in fact two Koh Changs in Thailand; the one I am referring to here lies off the south-east coast and is the second largest island, Phuket being the first. With it's chilled vibe, nice beaches, jungle like interior, and small but lively party scene, tropical Koh Chang has to be included in my top ten. Exploring the island by motorbike is easy enough and allows you go from beach to beach, taking in it's various stages of tourism, from the very laid back to the extremely commercial. Activities on offer include: diving, snorkelling, kayaking, hiking and elephant trekking, as well as trips to the surrounding islands. For me the mix was good, half my time there was spent relaxing and partying, the other half spent riding elephants and just generally exploring my surroundings. As on Koh Tao my experience of this island is limited, but what I did see I liked and I hope to go back.

8 - Ayutthaya

I seemed to fall a little in love with Ayutthaya within a very short time, surpassing my expectations, which probably weren't that high due to the lack of recommendations from other travellers. Ancient temples and ruins which are scattered throughout the city are the main draw for tourists. In my opinion these are some of the best temples and historical sights in Thailand, and being only an hour or so from Bangkok a day trip is possible. Having said that, it's worth staying at least 2 or 3 days to explore the temples and the city in general, and to absorb the laid-back and slightly spiritual atmosphere. There's a fair range of accommodation, nice and inexpensive food can be found in the markets, and bicycles, which are a great way of seeing the city, can be rented for next to nothing. There's not too much in terms of a night-life but there are a few bars that attract tourists, ex-pats and locals alike and where a good night can be had. Thai-style clubs or discotheques can also be found and in my experience are often a lot of fun.  

7 - Koh Samet

If you're flying into Bangkok but are looking to avoid the capital's hectic and humid streets, preferring instead a much more chilled island lifestyle, then Koh Samet is a good option. It's about 2 to 4 hours minibus ride from Bangkok to Ban Phe Pier (very much depending on traffic and stops), then approximately a 30min ferry ride from the pier to the island itself, which when considering the distances to other islands in the south of Thailand, makes Koh Samet fairly convenient and stress free. Finding really cheap food and accommodation isn't always easy but the amazing white sand, lazy chilled days (there are some options for the more energetic and adventurous), and lively night-life are a good mix. On the weekend it's a good place to meet young party-loving Thais as many of them seem to flock to the island to escape Bangkok. But be warned, this makes finding accommodation a lot harder so either pre-book or arrive before Friday when this shouldn't be an issue.  

6 - Isaan

Whilst Isaan has only made it in at number 6, the more time I spend in the north east region of Thailand the more appealing it becomes. Therefore, I think it would be safe to assume that if I were to spend further time there, Isaan would steadily claw it's way up the list. The people, with their often laid back, helpful and friendly demeanour, is probably one of the most endearing features of this largely rural region. This more traditional side of Thailand, sometimes referred to as “the real Thailand”, is peaceful yet vibrant. Usually much cheaper when compared to other parts of Thailand, your money goes a lot further in regards to every day living costs. Accommodation, food (which is generally delicious), drink and transport, for the most part, are all inexpensive. Another feature that I noticed and loved was the importance of their local parks. Although very quiet throughout the day, by late afternoon they fill considerably with locals coming together, partly to exercise, partly to socialise. Walking, jogging, football, Sepak Takraw (a sport played throughout South-East Asia which is similar to volleyball, but differs by using a rattan ball and only permitting players to strike the ball with either their feet, knees, chest or head) and basketball are all activities that are commonplace to Isaan parks. It's a side of Thailand that many tourists don't see and that's a shame, but it's easy to understand why many people don't consider it, I guess, with it's lack of beaches and tourist friendly resorts.  

5 - Railey

Railey, a beautiful little place with its stand-out feature being it's limestone cliffs, can be found in the southern province of Krabi. Although attached to the mainland it projects an island persona due to the fact that it can only be reached by boat. Rock climbing the aforementioned limestone cliffs is a popular pastime and well worth the effort, half and full-day climbs are readily available. All levels of experience are catered for. The quality beaches and clear blue ocean, along with the jagged cliffs, help to create the effect of serenity, which can sometimes be broken when beaches are slightly crowded during peak times. Day and night the whole place has a nice community feel to it, even the monkeys seem fairly amiable. And there's plenty of reggae, a lot of it decent, which is always a big bonus for me.  

4 - Koh Kradan

Koh Kradan is the most beautiful of the Trang Islands and possibly the most beautiful of all Thailand's islands. Put simply Koh Kradan is stunning! Lying in the Andaman Sea south-west of Phuket and about 40 minutes from Trang on the mainland, this little gem remains largely underdeveloped with limited structures, no roads and no motor vehicles (except for boats ferrying people back and forth). It has all the usual criteria that makes up your typical island paradise: thick inner jungle, gorgeous white sand and clear turquoise waters. But what helps to make it even more appealing is the amazing coral reef that surrounds the island. Only a short swim away it is almost certainly the best snorkelling I have encountered in Thailand, and you don't need to pay any tour company for the privilege. Eating options are a little limited and as far as I could tell there was no party scene to speak of, but then if you are looking for that then maybe Koh Phi Phi is more your bag – Koh Kradan is all about tranquillity.  

3 - Chiang Mai

The ancient and historic city of Chiang Mai is certainly North Thailand's biggest tourist draw. Although a large city with some congestion problems, it's relatively chilled and stress free when compared to the likes of Bangkok. It's where the old meets the new, traditional meets modernity, which is all part of the appeal for me. Hours can be spent exploring the city, which is easily navigated and never a chore. Chiang Mai is famous for it's temples, and rightly so, but there's so much more to see and do. There's a wide range of accommodation, restaurants, bars (including some good live music venues), shops and markets; all tastes and budgets are catered for. Other things to see and do within the city itself include: Muay Thai, traditional Thai dance, museums, massage, cookery and yoga. There's an extensive range of outdoor activities which include mountain biking, rafting and jungle trekking, most of which take place outside of the city where Chiang Mai's beautiful mountains, lakes and countryside are located. A modern city with strong links to it's traditional past, Chiang Mai has a style all of it's own, which makes it an attractive alternative to many of Thailand's beach destinations.

2 - Koh Phangan

Probably best known for it's hedonistic night-life and Full Moon Parties, Koh Phangan doesn't disappoint. Having said that it's the island's more relaxed beaches on the east and west coasts that I find more appealing. There the days are peaceful and lazy, made up of sunbathing and snorkelling. But, a party is never far away, and if you really want to go at it then taxis run to Haad Rin (the busiest and most commercial area of Phangan, and home of the Full Moon Party) from nearly anywhere on the island. Hiring a motorbike is the best and cheapest way to explore, and gives you the freedom to really get to know Koh Phangan and what it has to offer. Good vibe, good people (for the most part), and although it gets flooded with tourists at times you can still find that partly secluded tropical island paradise that we all crave from time to time; you just have to look for it.

1 - Koh Lanta

Koh Lanta, my personal favourite for a number of years now, sits in the Andaman Sea just south-east of Phi Phi. It's not as pretty as Kradan, and it doesn't have the night-life of Phangan, but to me Lanta is well rounded with a near perfect balance. The busiest beach is rarely what you'd call busy, but if you want total seclusion you just hop on a motorbike and continue down the west coast where deserted beaches can still be found. The night-life on the face of it seems practically non-existent, but scratch the surface a little and you soon realise there's always a party going on, somewhere. Certain bars host live bands, sometimes local musicians, sometimes international bands. The food is decent and cheap and the people are friendly and helpful. The mix on Lanta is good, you can socialise or find solitude; have a lazy day by the sea or explore the island; eat pizza or local cuisine: have a quiet, relaxing drink to the soundtrack of reggae or down cocktails and shots as the DJ pumps out faster, more repetitive music. Will this balance be disrupted as tourism grows and development expands? Possibly, but for now all is good, so make the most of it while it lasts.