Shiraz Socialist

Those of you who follow this site rather more closely than is healthy, will recall that the other day I had a spat with one of my commenters, SWP’er Morbo, over my linking to Harry’s Place. This can be re-read here, if you are so inclined. I would still hold that I was essentially right and he was essentially wrong, about linking to sites with which you may not agree politically. But… it got myself, Lala and, perhaps surprisingly to some of you, even Jim, talking about the specific case of Harry’s Place, as well as the wider Euston Manifesto phenomenon of which it forms a keystone building block. Given that the “pro-war left” is such an internet-driven phenomenon, and also given that the Eustonite “line” seems to be to strenuously deny being neocons of any kind - albeit with the occasional slippage into “you don’t have to be a neocon/pro-war/pro-Bush to sign the manifesto” language - I thought a cursory examination of this claim, along with the recent political evolution of one of Euston’s most important components, might be in order.

Now before we really get going, it is true that there are political differences among Eustonite bloggers. The folks at Fisking Central, who have as I understand it signed the Manifesto, differ among themselves on the war on Iraq, as well as on other questions. I think the reason why they can all agree with the Manifesto is because it is so vague as to be agreeable to anyone from David Cameron to John McDonnell, but nevertheless it’s also therefore possible for someone to be both essentially decent and a Euston signatory.

Right then gentle reader, let’s move on to Harry’s Place.

Harry’s Place is one of the most-read political websites in the UK, and is almost certainly the number one in terms of comment that it attracts in the mainstream media. It’s run by people who would loosely describe themselves as (though the term seems to be going out of fashion) “pro-war left”. I.E, they’re people who would claim in some sense to be left-wing, who supported the war on Iraq because they believed it was a liberationist war which would empower the masses in Iraq to democracy and freedom. Complete nonsense in my view, but there you are.

Now, let’s look at their recent response to the crises in Israel, Palestine and the Lebanon. On the kidnapping of Gilad Shalit, strong support for Israel, with posts including one that starts sympathetic, but then appears to accuse a Palestinian mother (writing about her family’s suffering under the Israeli barrage in Gaza), and the Gaza population in general of complicity in the kidnapping. And of course, although in this post it is unsaid, there is then the further implication that they brought it all on themselves, didn’t they? The cutting off of electricity and water supplies? Perfectly reasonable because Ms El-Farra’s so complicit that she practically snatched the guy herself, right? And her kids… well that’s very unfortunate but it’s all in the name of enlightenment values you know - and these Arab fundos sometimes need to be taught a lesson…

And if you think that’s offensive crap, then take a look at the comments underneath the post, which give something of a flavour of the type of “left” that HP attracts these days.

Now, look at their coverage for the past week or two, of the crisis in the Lebanon. Post after post with pictures of Hizbollah soldiers doing one-armed salutes, posts accusing the UK anti-war movement (which, in HP parlance, appears to consist of the SWP, George Galloway, Azzam Tamimi and the MAB, and no one else) of being “pro-fascist” because of speeches that Galloway and Tamimi have given in the recent past. A positive exhortation to people, to attend today’s rally “in solidarity with Israel” in London. You name it, they’ve done it - apart from get to the basic point that it is morally reprehensible, and bordering on war crime, for Israel to be doing what it is currently doing to innocent men, women and children in South Lebanon.

OK, basics time. As any fool who’s ever glanced in the direction of a military history book knows, you can’t defeat an anyonymous guerilla movement by aerial bombardment. It has never worked, and it won’t work here. And if this fool knows that, then you can safely presume that the IDF’s commanding officers know it too. So, we can safely discount (as it would seem, do certain representatives of the usually pro-Israeli UK government) the idea that these are the proclaimed “surgical strikes”, intended to knock out Hizbollah whilst minimising harm to the Lebanese people in general. Flattening of towns, naval blockades, attacks on Beirut airport, etc, would all seem to bear this out as well.

All of which is obvious to you and I. But not, it would seem, to the “pro-war left”.

There is a term to describe people who believe in using western military might to enforce freedom (a contradiction in terms to most of us) in countries across the world, people who believe in virtually unconditional strategic support for Israel as the state capable of quelling religious fundamentalism, and people who define any kind of stance against western imperial adventures as being irredeemably reactionary. “Liberal interventionist” and “Liberal imperialist” have been used. But the real heritage is that of the US neocon movement. Ex-Democrats all, still socially liberal on many domestic issues - witness Irving Kristol’s statement in the book “Neoconservatism” that he would expand social security for the elderly - but believers in using the co-ercive power of the state to enforce forward-looking enlightenment values upon the world. That’s a description of neoconservatives, and it’s a description that also fits the core values of the pro-war “left” in the UK as well. Postings on HP being the most obvious expression of those values.

There is a lot more to be said about the core group organising the various public faces of Euston, but that’s a post for another day.

It was a particular concern of mine prior to the AWL’s Ideas for Freedom event this year, that certain younger comrades of theirs were falling into the trap of thinking that the pro-war Euston crowd were somehow “better” than the mass of the left in the UK, because they share and reiterate many of the AWL’s (largely correct, albeit vastly over-reiterated) criticisms of the SWP. Because of that superficial agreement the deeper issues where the AWL and the SWP are closer than either group would care to admit - ie their basically socialist vision of how the world should be, their opposition to wars like that in Iraq, etc, were being forgotten. As I’ve mentioned in a previous post, that particular concern was laid to rest in a magnificent debate between the AWL and two hapless Eustonites at that event.

But nevertheless, I would seek to reiterate my point to anyone on the left, who thinks that the neocon core group of those who composed the Euston Manifesto are a positive influence on progressive politics in the UK. They’re not, and if you’re one of the many good people people who is considering signing the manifesto, and I know you’re out there, then I’d ask you to consider very carefully the political project that you’re signing up to before you put your name on the dotted line. Similarly, if you’re one of the several good people who have already signed it, I would ask you to consider removing your name. You’re not signing up to a progressive project in the sense that most would understand it, you’re not even signing up to a vaugely Blairite centre-left statement of intent. You’re signing up to a nascent UK neoconservative movement, and unless you’re fully aware of the implications of that, you should not put your name on its founding document.

And my link to Harry’s Place? It’s staying up for now, but for information purposes only. An interesting read it may be, but “left” or “liberal” in any sense, it simply is not. I don’t support the politics of the so-called pro-war left, and neither should you.

Here’s a quickie folks, just to balance my post about Azzam Tamimi’s gross-out speech to an “anti-war” rally the other day. It’s not only pro-Hizbollah rants like Tamimi’s that are doing the rounds on the internet, as this rather slick piece of pro-Israeli propaganda shows. Nothing like whitewashing of history by ignoring inconvenient truths, is there? For instance, the withdrawal from the Lebanon is mentioned, whilst Ariel Sharon’s stroll on Temple Mount is not. The Shalit kidnapping is mentioned, whilst the Jenin massacre is not. Israel is presented as a whiter-than-white innocent state responding to attack, whilst the Arabs (and it’s of note that the author skips and slides around the Lebanese Shia of Hizbollah and the Gaza Palestinians of the as-yet-unconfirmed group that kidnapped Shalit, as though they were the same thing) are presented as untrustworthy liars who indiscriminately shell Israeli civilians.

Sorry, did I say “slick” propaganda? There’s probably an “l” in there that I should take out.

First of all as avirgin blogger, apologies if this message is only half sent or whatever. I promise I will get the hang of it.

It seems very appropriate for my first blog to say goodbye to my former leader Ted Grant. I have sat through many a conference, and many meeting listening to the same speech which always ended with that chopping hand gesture and his usual mantra - “A Socialist Britain, a Socialist Europe and a Socialist World”.

During the eighties when I was a dedicated Millie member (even though there was no such organisation, with no members who never met regularly !),I met Ted several times. He always stuck me as a rather dotty but sweet old uncle who was wheeled out at family occasions to add a bit of gravitas now and again. I could never understand why so many of the “comrades “held him in such awe. Undoubtedly a smart bloke, but being in his company was a bit like wandering around some dusty old department store that had really had its day.

Probably my enduring memory of him is swapping vegetarian recipes in the back of a taxi ,on a cold Birmingham night and him addressing me as “young lady”.

So bye Ted, and bye to dawn paper sales outside factories, nationalising the top two hundred monopolies, donkey jackets and doc marten boots and making large contributions to the Fighting Fud.

Just where exactly did all that money go ? But that’s another story !

Well thats a cheery title for my first post. Ted Grant, also know as Isaac Blank, passed away yesterday morning aged 93. He was a leader of the International Marxist Tendency aka Committee for a Marxist International aka Socialist Appeal, or more appropriately, the Grantites. So what do I, as a Socialist Party member (Taaffeite) think about it all?

Well just a bit of background, very briefly. Ted was a pioneer of the British Trotskyist movement, a leading member of the Workers International League, then Revolutionary Communist Party, Socialist Fight and then the Militant (RSL). The Militant grew to become a serious force on the Left, Liverpool, expulsions from Labour, Poll tax etc etc. It then underwent a serious split in Britain and in the Committee for a Workers International (the international org that it was affiliated to). This was mainly over the Labour Party, Stalinism, economic perspectives etc etc. A minority left (actually expelled as they had set up their own organisation), with Ted Grant as its leading spokesman, to set up Socialist Appeal and the CMI.

I never met Ted, having joined the ‘tendency’ in 1999 i was way too late, but have heard some very funny stories about him. Apparently he was tee total, though i have heard things to the contrary. His books and writings were very interesting, although slightly inpenetrable to mere ‘Taaffeite activists’ like myself, his demolition of the Cliffite theory of state capitalism being particularly amusing (if you like that sort of thing).

I have also heard stories that Ted supplemented his meagre income (and trust me it is meagre - i know from a previous life) as a Millie full timer by being a door to door vacuum cleaner salesman, and i have every reason to believe that this is true.

Of course relations soured between the CWI and the CMI with the quite frankly disgusting articles written by Alan Woods and Rob Sewell regarding the history of Militant. They believe that only Ted was responsible for the growth of Militant - of course Ted played a massive and important role, as did Alan and Rob, but also no more than comrades like Peter Taaffe, Keith Dickinson, Clare Doyle, Tony Saunois and countless others. They have falsified history to further their interests. But despite all that, Ted should be remembered as a self sacrificing Marxist who dedicated his life to the Marxist movement.

Right all thats far too serious, time to get back to the split in Workers Power, I need some light relief.

This one’s especially for Stroppy, who appears to think I have an Yvonne Ridley fixation.

Many of you will be familiar with my little series of scribblings about la Ridley, looking (not always with due reverence) at her political actions and stances. But it seems this time she’s got something extra special to tell us.

In an article in Muslims Weekly from a couple of months ago, Yvonne brings to our attention a phenomenon which is eating away at the moral core of Muslim communities across the UK, and which is clearly a diversion from the concerns that should always be at the forefront of those communities’ minds, such as Guantanamo and Iraq. The name of this disturbing, diversionary phenomenon? Errm… it’s nasheed music.

In the article, Ridley berates nasheed superstar Sami Yusuf in particular, for his encouragement of “pop culture” amongst young Muslims. She was horrified, it seems, to see Yusuf’s “stage groupies” (I presume this is Yvonne-speak for “staff”) encouraging people to get up and sing along. This, she considers is comparable to the “fluffers” who Yvonne thinks operate in lap-dancing circles. Well, being a boy of such high moral standards, I wouldn’t know.

And she finshes off with a crescendo warning to all, lest they fall under the spell of this latter day pied piper:

“Will you climb on theater chairs and express your rage over Guantanamo Bay and other gulags where our brothers and sisters are being tortured, raped, sodomized, beaten, and burned? Or will you just switch off this concerned sister and switch on to the likes of Sami Yusuf because he can sell you a pipe dream with his soothing words and melodic voice?”

Wow, Sami. You’re a bad bad man. You and your mind-controlling charity concerts, trying to hypnotise the world and stop its citizens from hearing Yvonne’s words of wisdom. And here was me thinking you just sang nice songs.

Yusuf has written a dignified response to Ridley, which can be read here, and which sets a few things straight:

“What shocked and even angered me was the way you shamelessly insulted our pure innocent sisters who were supporting a charity concert by describing them as “fluffers”! (Incidentally, these very sisters managed to raise over £100,000 for orphans all over the world.) I – like the vast majority of those who read your article – was blissfully ignorant about the very existence of this disgusting obscene word, and I would question the wisdom of introducing it to the vocabulary of your readers.”

Want my advice, Sami? Just ignore the strange lady and keep on making that great music.

But then I’m a blogger, and as Yvonne knows, we’re evil.

Did you know that today has been International Trombone Day? No, neither did I, until ran into a man in a pub (a french horn player with the CBSO) who told me about it: apparently 800 trombonists from all over the world today converged on Birmingham (UK) to perform the premier of a new work for “massed trombones, tabla and dhol by Rick Taylor”.

All of which is simply an excuse for me to tell you about Miff Mole , and to reproduce a rather good (IMHO) piece of writing by Otis Ferguson. As both Mole and Ferguson are, these days, forgotten figures, it gives me great pleasure to draw your attention to them both. You’ll have to ignore some 1920’s/30’s jazz references (a “Friar’s Inn background”, for instance), but I still think the piece is very descriptive and poweful.

First, Irving Milfred “Miff” Mole (1898-1961): the first jazz trombone soloist of any significance. In the 1920’s he was a leading figure on the jazz scene and in the studios. But in the 1930’s and 40’s he retreated into studio work (becoming what would now be called a “session man”) and gradually dropped off the jazz radar. By 1960 even his “session” work had dried up, and someone recognised him as he sold pretzels in a New York subway. When the New York jazz community heard about his plight, they started organising benefit gigs, but it was all too late: he died in April 1961, and was buried in a pauper’s grave.

Otis Ferguson was one of the very first serious jazz critics (in the 1930’s), and a contributor to the seminal book “Jazzmen”, edited by Frederick Ramsay Jnr and Charles Edward Smith (published in 1939, and still worth reading). Like Ramsay and Smith, Ferguson was a leftist, but unlike them he had no time for the CP. He died on September14, 1943 when his ship, the Bushrod Washington, was hit by a radio-guided bomb: his friend, Malcolm Cowley commented: “The other seamen escaped before the vessel burned to the waterline, but the bomb had exploded in the messroom, to which Otis, as was his custom, had gone down alone for a cup of coffee”. Anyway, here is Otis Ferguson on Miff Mole and the Trombone in Jazz:

“Milfred (Miff) Mole was born in Long Island, studied piano and violin through his school days, and then learned trombone from A to Z. He heard jazz and wanted to play it, but he patterned his instrument on the work of the trumpet. He was a slight and studious-looking youngster when he first bobbed up in the Manhatten studios in 1922, with a round face and round glasses (he looked as young as the others, though born in 1898). But he could do things on his jazz instrument no one else could do, and so all through the twenties, till the late arrival from Texas of Jack Teagarden-perhaps only until just before that, when Glenn Miller came in with the Pollack band-everybody who thought of organising a hot band thought of Miff Mole.

“He could raise the tension of any band with a four-bar break, he could swing into the pattern of a trumpet solo with a middle eight bars, he could take thirty-two by himself, and double that, and keep the line of interest clear and free. What is more, he was old reliable himself in studio work; he could play straight when he had to and when you wantedsomething else it was there.

“The word that has slipped into the talk about him is “technician”, which is short of the fact and a little slighting. Mole is a fine technician of course, but much else besides. his harmonic sense is impeccable; his taste is clean. With everybody else muffing weaknesses with shakes, slurs, repeated phrases, and high notes, he sticks to a rounded phrase of notes struck dead center. His slide is as easy and noiseless as a trumpet valve without sacrificing that typical and exhilarating capacity of the instrument for rolling into a note; more, he knows, as few have discovered, how to use the full lower register to give a phrase an upward spring. He never tries something he can’t pull off, and yet there seems to be little he can’t pull off-and probably the “technician” stuff comes from the way he will blandly jump five positions or an octave and a third with nothing more of effort between each full note than the slight tonguing effect which cuts each out, with the clarity of good brass work.

“He played jazz when jazz was pretty crude; he played on the beat and on the chord, and he played with a certain easy bounding zest. He was so far ahead of Brunies and Pecora when he started that there is no telloing what a Friar’s Inn background would have done for him. He is still so much more interesting in any stretch than all but Jimmy Harrison and Teagarden that I would not guarantee what might now be said of him if he had died ten years ago in rather horrible circumstances. But he is forty-one now, boys, and forty-one is no age for cutting the brash capers of youth. He has settled down to a peaceful and secure middle age in the studios. He might have been greater if he had been pushed around more by more of the right people at the right time and place; but he was one of the first jazz names I knew; he was a lasting influence on an instrument I admire most for its grand depth and brilliance; and I can still put a Miff Mole’s Molers on the machine and feel a genuine living interest-which is not to be confused with the scholastic excitement of archeology. Regardless of influences, I don’t imagine Mole ever had what Teagarden has inside him. For that matter, neither has any other trombonist in the world, for my money. But before you follow the crowd in letting him go as merely an expert in plumbing, go listen to ten or twenty good records out of nearly a thousand-perhaps just a couple of casuals he did with his own band, “You’re the Cream in My Coffee” or “Moanin’ Low”".

Azzam Tamimi, speaking at a meeting of the UK’s largest “peace” movement, the Stop the War Coalition:

“Israel cannot exist in peace with anyone. Israel, the Zionist entity, is made of evil.”

For some more utterances from this Great Man Of Peace, watch and listen here. Note the loud cheering from assembled “peaceniks”. Who presumably have forgotten what the word “peace” actually means.

You know, I dig my heels in and argue with people like the Eustonites (and Jim!) who think that the UK anti-war movement is a sick joke. After listening to and seeing that godawful spectacle, I wonder why I bother.

In the present depressing political situation, I found the following (from the UK Musicians’ Union), encouraging and rather moving:

“£43, 000 raised for musicians in New Orleans.

“Within ten days of hurricanes Katrina and Rita devastating New Orleans, a band was playing in Southampton High Street in order to raise funds for the musicians who had lost their homes, instruments, and livelihoods. £514.00 was raised that day and from this start, the New Orleans Musicians’ Appeal Fund (NOMAF) was formed. The Charities Commission statement was to collect money for musicians without any deduction for administration or expenses (excepting minimum bank charges) and they would pass it in lump sumsto organisations in the city who knew the musicians, their needs and had also pledged hat they would take no money for running costs from the money that we had sent to them.

“Immediately after the hurricane, bank accounts were inaccessible. So the first need to be addressed was money for temporary housing and everyday items; anything from cleaning materials to apair of socks. To this end NOMAF almost immediately sent £1,500 to the Tipitana’s Foundation, to help in the cost of temporary re-housing and another £1,500 …(to be) handed out in parcels of 500 dollars to needy musicians. At the same time £3,000 was sent to the Musicians’ Clinic - an organisation that treats musicians free of charge and boasts that they can turn a one-dollar donation into twelve dollars of care. Their New Orleans base had been flooded, all of then patient records were underwater and they had lost access to any money. The clinic relocated temporarily in Lafayette and set about the task of tracing their patients, getting prescriptions to them and urgent medical equipment such as oxygen tanks. All this was done on newly donated money.

“The second stage was to deal with more long-term needs. Another£4,000 was sent to the Musicians’ Clinic, who had returned to their premises in New Orleans. They were beginning the massive task of drying out the building, patient records and replacing water-damaged medical equipment. Yet another £4,000 was sent to NOMRF, who this time did a deal with Conn-Selmer and re-equipped the New Wave Brass Band with instruments that had been lost in the flood. This was done at below cost price and the band was able to march once again at Mardi Gras. £3, 000 was sent to The Preservation Hall charity. The new Orleans Musicians’ Hurricane Relief Fund (NOMHRF) provided furniture for Bob French, a jazz drummer, after he had found a new apartment. Bob’s apartment in Treme was heavily damaged in the storm and being an older gentleman with a drum kit, he needed a new place of his own. Bob is a bandleader, and an outspoken advocate for New Orleans music. Furnishing his apartment will provide a base of operations for him to continue playing and educating the world about music from New Orleans.

“At the special request of two of our donors, another £5,000 was sent to NOMRF. This helped Eddie Bo, a piano player, to repair his roof, as well as aiding Jean Brazeale, a singer/pianist and a young band ‘The Morning 40 Federation’.

“Another request by the donors was for money totalling £5,200 to be sent to the (US) Musicians’ Union: they have an Altruist fund for hurricane relief, which was also being administered without deduction of expenses.

“The fund has to date collected over £43,400.00 and the administrators feel that it will soon be time to close the fund which was only ever meant to give immediate relief. Not only the jazz lovers in this country contributed money: donations have also been recieved fron France, germany and from Spain. Chris Walker will be visiting New Orleans in april and the rest of the funds will be distributed at that time”.

“Chris Walker
“Vice Chairman of the M.U. Jazz Section Committee)

Well, I’m sure you’ll all have seen by now that there’s a ban about to be imposed on Al-Ghurabaa and the Saved Sect, two successor groups (which I’d always thought were one group under two “front” names, but hey, John Reid’s more clued up than me, right?) of Al-Muhajiroun. Al-Ghurabaa were the ones on the tiny demo with the “Stick pins in the eyes of those who insult Islam” banners after 7/7.

Now, these are not nice people. They do promote hatred between Muslims and non-Muslims, they actually do “glorify terrorism”, they do support suicide bombing, and they do publish deeply inflammatory material, which they propogate and distribute. They are in no way to be supported as “fellow anti-imperialists” or as any sort of progressives, by anyone who considers themself to be on the left.

But the idea that these posturing extremists, or their clownish leader Anjem Choudhury (who first came to my notice when he got his butt kicked by Tariq Ramadan and several others in a debate on BBC Newsnight a while back) are a threat to national security, is a nonsense. Aside from anything else, the security services plainly know exactly who they are, where they are, and what they do. Therefore the likelihood of Anjem and his chums - even assuming they did have the balls to do so - sneakily making bombs and detonating them without anyone noticing, seems to me very remote.

So, what’s this ban really about? It’s about gesture politics at its worst. The government need the population to believe in a massive and sinister ongoing terrorist threat in order to justify their whole security policy rationale, ranging from the raids on houses belonging to innocent UK citizens of Muslim religion and culture, to the war in Iraq (which was about stopping international terrorism, remember, at least after the “45 minute threat” proved to be a load of cobblers), to more general attacks on civil liberties like ID cards. And proscribing 300 losers who go on demonstrations wearing loo rolls tied to look like bomb belts, obviously makes for an ideal gesture.

Don’t be fooled. Al-Ghurabaa are a nasty bunch, for sure. But they’re tossers, not terrorists. And being a tosser shouldn’t be an arrestable offence in a free country.

I remember, about twenty years ago, talking to Sean Matgamana about Ireland. At that time, sectarian attacks between Protestants and Catholics, were rife. The British “‘Sunningdale’ peace attempt had been destroyed by a ‘Loyalist’ general strike in 1974. The ‘Republican’ movement, widely supported on the English ‘left’, seemed to be opposed to any concesions to the “Loyalists” in the Six Counties: all they (the ‘Republicans’) were willing/capable of saying was that the Proddies were the aggressors, and the Catholics the innocent victims. Historically, that was (very roughly) true, but it didn’t help either side reach a resolution. There seemed no way out of the impasse. Sean (from an Irish-Catholic- Republican background), who had started his political career as a left-republican, but had developed (as an auto-didact) into a Marxist, was very, very gloomy; he said something like: “It’s just bloody awful. We have the programmatic answer to all this slaughter - but no-one is listening to us”. He went on to say something like: “I’m in despair: if you want my honest opinion, I think we’ll lose and nothing can be done. but still we have to keep putting our prgramme forward: it’s all we can do”.

I feel very much the same way about the Middle East. I’m close to despair. The Isreali bombardment of Lebanon, and the civilian deaths that are resulting, is just awful. it *is* collective punishment, completely disproportionate, and the civilised world should cry out that it’s unacceptable.

I’ve just recieved an e-mail, inviting me to attend a rally this coming Saturday, called by the Palestinian Solidarity Committee (PSC). The slogans seem to be OK: “Stop the Israeli attacks on Gaza and Lebanon”; OK, I can agree with that. I’ll almost certainly attend. But I won’t be easy in my mind: I’m never be at ease attending Palestine Solidarity events. Why not? Because I know that most of their leading members are for the destruction of Israel. Not for the “whithering away of the state” in the Marxist sense, but for the destruction of the Israeli state in an immediate sense that the PSC and their co-thinkers on the British ‘left’ (eg: the “S” WP), do not apply to any other state. They occassionally, when asked, claim to be for a “two state solution”. But I know that they are liars about that. Betty Hunter and the other leaders of the PSC are deliberately ambiguous about “two states” because they know that to come clean as advocates of the destruction of Isreal would cost them the support of mainstream figures in the Labour Party and the unions. So they stay schtum.

So what should those of us who support a “two states” solution, do in the present situation? It is essential that we make it clear - first and foremost - that Israel’s actions in Gaza and Lebanon, are unnaceptable in terms of loss of life, are politically counter-productive and in every respect disproportunate. We should join any and all protests against Isreal’s miltary actions, except those called by Islamists, the SWP and anyone else calling for the destruction of the state of israel. which is where the problem with the PSC comes in: they are *not* officially for the destruction of the state of Isreal: but I know that their leading members *are*. So what do we do about PSC demos? What those of us who are unabigiously for ‘two states’ should be doing now, is organising our own protests against the killings in Lebanon and Gaza - but also condemning the murderous and hypoctitical role of Syria in encouraging Hizbollah to attack Israeli civilian targets. We must also condemn Syria, Hizbollah, Hammas and all those who work against any “solution” that does not recognise the right of Israel to exist behind 1967 borders..

To go back to Sean Matgamna, and Ireland. Sean reckoned that - on balance - all was lost and that all we, as socialists, could do was to put forward our porgramme in the forlorn hope that *someone* might take it up. Actually, Sean’s pessimism has been been proved wrong. A programe for reconcilliation and peace (not exactly that proposed by Sean, but not altogether dissimilar - the Good Friday Agreement) has been cobbled togeter and sectarian violence has diminished, though not altogether disappeared. Massive problems remain; but the the spirit in the Six Counties is now one of hope, not despair. If the Isreali peace movement can be supported, and Palestinian secularists and non-Islamist nationalists can be supported, then there is still hope. Maybe -like Sean on Ireland- I can be proven wrong on Isreal/Palestine.