The cynical Israeli invasion of Gaza

Gaza

What more can you say than what the cartoon (found at Permanent Revolution) already expresses? The idea that Israel’s aerial attacks against and subsequent invasion of Gaza are a response to Hamas terrorism doesn’t pass the laugh test. We know this attack has been planned for a long time, we’ve seen the preparations, we know it fits the Israeli strategy of ratching up the pressure on Gaza. We’ve seen it all before, back in 2006, when the Israeli army did the same in their first attempt to topple Hamas. That ended with a Fatah driven coup against the democratically elected Hamas governement which saw Hamas ousted from power in the West Bank but the opposite happening in Gaza. With Fatah now powerless or unwilling to take on Hamas again, Israel now has to effect regime change on its own. Hence the ground invasion.

table showing a huge drop in attacks during the ceasefire

The reason we cannot take Israel at its word about why they moved from economic strangulation and “surgical strikes” to a fullblown airwar and invasion is shown in the graph above, taken from official Israeli sources. What do you see? That during the ceasefire agreed to between Hamas and Israel in June last year, attacks from Gaza decreased dramatically, only picking up again after Israel started attacking in force. There’s a lot of manufactured outrage spread by Zionist apologists about these attacks, but what they forget to mention is that during the ceasefire Israel did not lift its blockade, nor stopped its policy of extrajudicial assasinations, with 22 Palestinians having been killed by Israeli forces during the truce. The number of Israelis killed? Zero.

Everything about this invasion is cynical and calculated, from the way its being justified to the date it was implemented, two days after Christmas, when all the lights have gone off in the world’s government buildings anyway. It’s been so cynical I haven’t really been able to write about it so far, as it has just made me too depressed and outraged. Fortunately, there’s Lenin’s Tomb, which has done splendid work reporting on the invasion and its background.

Cry of the Newborn — James Barclay

Cover of Cry of the Newborn


Cry of the Newborn
James Barclay
819 pages
published in 2005

James Barclay is not a writer I had heard of before I got this book out of the library. The backcover blurb sounded interesting and the frontcover sported a quote by Steven Erikson, one of my favourite fantasy writers, so while the first few pages I sampled were a bit dull I thought I’d take a chance. The library also had the sequel, but I didn’t put that one up as this was big enough already; I could always get it next time. But I don’t think I will. Erikson’s blurb said that Cry of the Newborn was “a most extraordinary and impressively ambitious novel”, but in reality it was just a bog standard epic fantasy novel. Not a bad novel by any standards, competently written certainly, but nothing special.

[…]

The second objection is more fundamental. The world Barclay has created is presented as if the Concord is a force for good, described in terms which argue that the Estorian hunger for empire is not driven by base motives, but out of a noble desire to create order and stability. Trouble is, I don’t buy it. Looking at it objectively, the Concord is just not that nice, happily waging wars of conquest only to then suck the conquered countries dry for further conquest, not to mention the enrichment of the Estonian elite. Sure, by author fiat there’s little of the cruelity on display practised by real world empires like the Roman or British Empire and it’s even fairly gender neutral, with the current ruler of the Concord being a woman, and with various viewpoint characters being female soldiers and officers, but this is just window dressing. I just could not see the Concord as the good guys, or help root for the supposed baddies, who after all only wanted to live in peace in their own country. Fantasy is a somewhat conservative, some would even say reactionary genre and I can overlook some of the more …odious… assumptions in a given novel if the story is right, but not this time.

Read more

Books read December

So we finally come to the grand total of books read this year: 152, or almost three books a week. Yes, I’m quite proud of that.

The Horned Dinosaurs — Peter Dodson
An excellent overview of what we know about Triceratops and its relatives. Dodson doesn’t just tell what we know, but how we got that knowledge and isn’t afraid to show what isn’t known or cannot be known about Triceratops.

A Savage War of Peace — Alistair Horne
George Bush was supposed to have read this. In the unlikely case that he has, he may have noted the resemblance between the French experience in Algeria and what American troops were dealing with in Iraq.

Psychohistorical Crisis — Donald Kingsbury
A reworking of/semi-sequel to Isaac Asimov’s classic Foundation series that’s much better than Asimov’s own sequels.

Web of Angels — John M. Ford
A proto-cyberpunk novel by a vastly underrated author, with a style of storytelling that reminded me in equal parts of Zelazny and Delany.

Candle — John Barnes
A Barnes novel that actually ends on an optimistic note and with a protagonist that isn’t some masochist? Miracles still happen it seems.

War for the Oaks — Emma Bull
I don’t particularly like urban fantasy as a genre, but this is one of the novels that defined the genre.

The Perspective of the World — Fernand Braudel
The third and last volume in Braudel’s Civilisation and Capitalism series, taking a global look at the development of capitalism between the fifteenth and eighteenth centuries.

The Prince — Niccolo Macchiavelli
The book which gave us the adjective “macchiavelian”, it has a mostly undeserved reputation as an amoral treatise on how to stay in power as an autocrat.

KV – 1 & 2 — Steven Zaloga & Jim Kinnear
Another Osprey war nerd volume, on a Soviet World War II tank series not so well known as the T-34, but almost as important in the first stages of the Great Patriotic War. Heavily armoured and armed with the same 76 mm gun as the T-34, when these tanks first appeared the Germans had nothing to stop them with…

Bagration 1944 – The Destruction of Army Group Centre — Steven Zaloga
One of the most important campaigns of World War II, overshadowed by the Anglo-American invasion of Normandy in the same month. The speed and efficiency with which the Russians destroyed a German force much larger even than that during the battle for Stalingrad was a major reason for the almost complete collapse of the Eastern Front in 1944.

Anathem — Neal Stephenson
As is almost always the case with Stephenson, don’t read this novel for the plot, but read it for the various ideas he chews through on the way.

The Dutch Republic — Its Rise, Greatness, and Fall — Jonathan I. Israel
A very thorough if somewhat exhausting and occasional tedious history of the United Provinces, from its earliest roots in Burgundian times to its ultimate dissolution by Napoleon. It cost me a year to read this.

The Dragon’s Waiting — John M. Ford
A fantasy novel set ib a world in which Christianity didn’t break through, the Byzantium empire managed to restore much of the old Roman empire and some kinds of magic are real. This reminded me of some of Mary Gentle’s stories, especially the White Crow series.

The 2006 Lebanon Campaign — Stephen Biddle & Jeffrey A. Friedman
A US Army sponsored inquiry into the tactics and strategy employed by Hezbollah in the defence of Lebanon against Israeli attack in 2006. Was Hezbollah behaving as a typical guerilla movement or more like a proper army and what are the implications for US army policy?

Saturn’s Children — Charlie Stross
The last book I finished in 2008. A typical Stross novel, fastpaced, fun and smart. Awful cover on the American edition, but it is actually quite faithful to the description of the protagonist, who is in fact a redhaired sexbot whose nipples go spung. Yes, this is Stross doing Late Heinlein, warts and all, making it work.

See figure one

The British culture secretary wants to censor the internet; not just the British portion of it, but the entire English language internet:

The culture secretary, Andy Burnham, says in an interview today that the government is considering the need for “child safe” websites — registered with cinema-style age warnings — to curb access to offensive or damaging online material.

He plans to approach US president-elect Barack Obama’s incoming administration with proposals for tight international rules on English language websites, which may include forcing internet service providers, such as BT, Tiscali, Sky and AOL, to ­provide packages restricting access to websites without an age rating.

“There is content that should just not be available to be viewed. That’s my view. Absolutely categorical,” Burnham, the MP for Leigh in Greater Manchester, told the Daily Telegraph. “If you look back at the people who created the internet, they talked very deliberately about creating a space that governments couldn’t reach. I think we are having to revisit that stuff seriously now.”

Apart from the fact that his proposals are just unworkable, naive and done with no understanding of the internet, why the fuck is the culture minister is proposing these measures? Shouldn’t he defend freedom of speech on internet rather than scare monger? Or is he just another lazy fuck who wants to outsource the raising of his children? It seems to be, since he talks about leaving his children on the internet without supervision. Typical New Labour, never taking responsibility for their own actions.

Mr Burnham, see figure one:

figure one

I know it’s unfair, but

Twilight movie poster

…Everytime I see the movie poster of Twilight I can’t help but see the smug, self-satisfied faces of the Bush generation (I’m sure the actors are lovely people really). It’s just that there’s this whole cohort of kids having come of age during the Bush administration many of whom wo’ll have internalised the ethics of the Bush White House and that poster captures perfectly what I imagine they’ll look like: vain, self absorbed and thick. Unfair perhaps, but Twilight from all I’ve heard and read about does have that Bush entitlement syndrome down pat.