"While dictators rage and statesmen talk, all Europe dances — to The Lambeth Walk."

Monday, 6 April 2009

The G20 Chaos in London - for Justice, Equality & Palestine?

The second day of G20 protests were not as violent as the first, and the trouble has subsequently fizzled out, but a debate still rages about these protesters - who were they, exactly, and what did they want?

The first school of thought says that these people were 'crusties', 'scum', 'dole-scroungers', 'Lefties' - basically just misfits seizing upon an opportunity to cause trouble and have it noticed on a grand scale. The sort of people who have always dogged G20, G7, G8 and other such summits, and who used to cause quite a bit of trouble on May Day.

The second says that these people are ordinary members of the public infuriated with the way the Government has failed; many would be graduates who can't get jobs, people who have been made redundant, and a plethora of others angry at all the injustice in the world.

I must admit, I'm more inclined to accept a middle ground between the two. It seems that some ordinary people did march for reasons I support and understand - the criminal incompetence of the current Government, the increasing schism between the ordinary people and the elite, as well as the increase in repressive legislation and measures the Government uses to control us.

The vast majority of protesters did seem to have an agenda I fundamentally disagree with, however - trouble, violence, degrading Capitalism, 'world revolution' and giving yet more money to the Third World, all in the name of vague concepts such as 'peace', 'equality' and 'social justice'.

To put this into some context, I will now quote parts of a letter written to 'The London Paper' by 'Kia' Kielty (presumably no relation to the Korean car company), a 23 year old manager from London.

'The G20 demonstration was to protest about lots of things; most of which affect everyone, whether now or in the future, so I was shocked by some of the negative reactions being published.'

Were you? Why? It doesn't matter how wrong you think the Government's bail out of the banks is, is smashing up a bank the public now own in the midst of a £20 million police operation likely to help matters?

Apparently, she was a 'peaceful demonstrator', and we mustn't criticise her because she actually 'did something' - although again, I fail to see how shouting 'our streets' at the police and burning effigies of bankers really helps matters.

She goes on to list her (frighteningly predictable) grievances. Number one?

Palestine: 'I have read a lot on this subject and consider myself well-informed. You just need to see a map of Palestine in 1946, and compare it to what it is now - that sums up what Israel is doing. Archbishop Desmond Tutu and other black South Africans who lived under apartheid, have been to Gaza and the West Bank and said it's worse than what they went through. For the record, I'm not [sic] anti-Semite.

Firstly, my burning question is just what does this have to do with the economic crisis or the G20?

But that aside, I'm not sure the sources she has become 'well-informed' from are entirely accurate. Was there any such thing as 'Palestine' in 1946? Not in the sense that we now understand the term, no. The British Mandate of Palestine, a demarcation inherited from the regional government of the Ottoman Empire, consisted of present day Jordan, Israel and the 'Palestinian territories'.

Israel did not even directly control these two territories, the West Bank and the Gaza strip, until after they defeated the Arab belligerents in the Six Day war - that is 21 years after the date she mentions. Why was no concept of an independent 'Palestinian' nationality mentioned when both of these territories were under Muslim Arab control?

Similarly, why did the Muslim Arab countries not simply use their vast space and wealth to resettle these people if they were so concerned about the conditions in which they were living? Why did they instead actually restrict their movement and right to settle in other Arab lands?

Could it be because 'Palestine' is a political and social concept invented when the Arabs realised they could not defeat the Jews in war?

I don't call this cause just, I call it what it is - a large stick with which to repeatedly beat the West. The sad truth is the worse the 'Palestinian's' conditions are, the better it is for the Arab cause, and yet the vast majority of the world have fallen hook, line and sinker. It would be funny if it weren't so tragic - and dangerous.

As for Desmond Tutu, who cares about his opinion on this issue? I'd have thought he'd have had far more important things to worry about closer to home - or is he aiming to spread the love, joy and peace enjoyed by post-apartheid South Africa to Israel?

Anyway, 'Kia' goes on with her tedious list - I won't reproduce any more here, suffice to say they're all one-sided nonsense, especially the part where she lists 'money given by America to Israel' - seemingly oblivious to the fact that, for example Egypt receives more financial aid from the US than Israel in order to keep up the 'cold peace' that exists between them and the latter.

Is oiling Egypt's brutally repressive regime not a concern for Kia? She insists that all protesters are 'passionate humanitarians who care about humanity', so surely it should be?

To get an idea of just how passionate and humanitarian many of them were, I leave you with this excellent undercover report from the Daily Mail.

The journalist describes how many of the protesters were hardened thugs who enjoyed the violence, and they'd been looking forward to beating up policemen and smashing up banks for so long many actually shrugged off their injuries to carry on fighting until they were dragged off kicking and screaming.

Read the following excerpt:

Martin revealed with some delight that he is a veteran of the May Day riots that caused mayhem in central London over the past decade. 'I got arrested and did some time for it,' he said. 'This year will be chaotic - it will get messy.'

His aims are simple. Target anyone or any building linked to authority. All are fair game.

The types of anarchist appear to be split into two distinct categories. Some have a genuine - albeit offbeat - desire to challenge the political structure in the UK.

Others are simply drawn by their willingness to use violence. Their priority, they say, is to leave a calling card - a smashed window, an injured police officer.

'If a copper has to die to get our point across then so be it,' an anarchist known as Seth said. 'I'm happy if the filth get sent crashing to the floor and don't get up - then we've had a good day out.'

Quite. I find the seeping of the Palestinian cause into domestic politics increasingly frightening. Not only because if its links to terrorism and radical Islam, but because all ideologies which espouse or excuse violence tend to be profoundly self-righteous, and this cause is more so than most.

With so much emotionally charged rhetoric used to strangle facts and reality, and more and more people believing the whitewashed, 'Robin Hood' version, and anti-Semitic attacks and rhetoric increasing on the back of it, I fear this situation can only get worse.


Anonymous said...

wow...you really have no idea what you're on about. You mentioned the daily mail, so that really does say a lot about the kind of person you are. I'm not saying I agree with people smashing up banks, and burning effigies of bankers. That is stupid, I agree, but the peaceful protesters are well within their rights to speak out.
Kia mentioned the middle east as the g20 protests were about everything that everyone is angry about. It isn't all about the banks, fool. do more research.

The Venerable 1st Earl of Cromer said...


Thank you.

"you really have no idea what you're on about."

Well then do please feel free to enlighten me.

"You mentioned the daily mail, so that really does say a lot about the kind of person you are."

The kind of person who uses capital letters where appropriate? The kind of person who backs up his assertions with sources? I read a range of newspapers everyday, so you'll have to do a little better than that I'm afraid.

"...but the peaceful protesters are well within their rights to speak out."

I never said they weren't - I simply suggested such people seemed few and far between. I also said I can understand people's anger at government incompetence, but making up lies about 'Palestine' has little to do with Britain's recession.

"Kia mentioned the middle east as the g20 protests were about everything that everyone is angry about."

Define everyone.

"It isn't all about the banks, fool. do more research."

Wasn't the entire purpose of this post to point out to people that 'it wasn't all about the banks'?

You call me a fool, but it's your comment that completely lacks facts or logic.

Where would you suggest I go for further research - Yvonne Ridley's site? The Guardian?

I already read such sources, because unlike you I'm capable of glancing at something I disagree with without spontaneously combusting.

Thank you for stopping by and demonstrating just which side the narrow-minded dwell on.