Salisbury Democracy Alliance

Tag: Israel

  • Democracy Café – October

    The debate covered what was worth knowing and arms sales to Israel

    October 2024

    Full house for the October meeting with two lively debates.  We were also pleased to welcome several new members.  The first debate which won the vote was What is worth knowing? which quickly changed into a debate about what was taught in schools.  The first suggestion was ‘all that they need to know after they leave school’.  Another thought knowing the names of things important especially as it related to the natural world. This was followed by the suggestion that children should be taught the (true) history of the monarchy and what scoundrels and ‘thugs’ many were.

    A deeper question centred around knowledge or wisdom.  This point was made by several in the course of the debate and concerned the distinction between facts and the capacity to think critically about them. 

    In a similar vein, the importance of relationships was stressed.  Indeed, there was a torrent of suggestions which included the importance of an appreciation of the arts and music; to develop a passion for something in young people; to teach young people to trust their own instincts; teaching how to look for information and the need to teach practical skills especially as so much was spent at the keyboard.

    Critical thinking was mentioned more than once.  It was felt by several that facts alone were not sufficient but there was a need to foster enquiry and scepticism.  In Dicken’s Hard Times, currently being serialised on Radio 4, the main character’s insistence on facts and only facts, that’s what’s wanted – should not be the sole the focus of education.  Was education just about learning stuff to get a job (which sometimes seems to be a government view)?  This brought us to the national curriculum which was seen as something of a straitjacket.  This arose in a discussion about citizenship which some thought had disappeared because of time pressures and the need to get through the national curriculum and pass exams.  It turned out from a quick google search that it’s still around but it is very narrow and focuses on local government and similar parochial matters. 

    One speaker said how disturbed they were to see in a school a chart on a wall with a grading of children on it.

    Faith schools were introduced into the debate.  There are many in the country and a sizeable number were unregulated.  Creationism was still being taught in a few for example. One said ‘faith in schools’ was important rather than faith schools per se.  Spiritual awareness was important.  On the other hand, we now live in a secular society, faith should be a family thing.  The morning assembly was mentioned – a requirement of the 1944 act – but has now been replaced by what is termed an ‘act of collective worship’.  One person said that it used to be the case that non CofE pupils (Jews for example) were excluded from morning assembly.  It seemed to be agreed that teaching pupils about religion was important in view of its significance in our history and culture.  You needed to know about it to evaluate it one said. 

    We were reminded of a pertinent fact namely: children are naturally curious.  Why is it that this seems to get lost?  We did not debate this but the tenor of our discussion was about didactics and what should be learnt.  Yet the system seemed one way or another to dampen this natural curiosity found in children. 

    The mania for exams and qualifications was mentioned in connection with the College. It ran a course called ‘philosophy of our time’.  However, when the government introduced the lifelong learning initiative, perversely it required a qualification at the end and the tutor decided to run it privately. 

    Of course arguments about what should be taught in schools are as old as the hills.  How we acquire knowledge is changing rapidly, one said that their previous role as a librarian has all but disappeared.  What children need for life is also changing rapidly.  There seemed to be a consensus around the problem of government-imposed restrictions.  This meant that time given to ‘life skills’ (however defined) was limited.  There was a real need to facilitate critical thinking and a questioning attitude. 

    The second session after a break, tackled the vexed question How do we stop selling arms to Israel?  The question inevitably morphed into should we still be selling arms? There were several interventions concerning the history of the area.  Historically, British and French interests focused on the Suez Canal’s importance. It was a crucial link to India. At the beginning of the last century, oil also became significant. They did not want Arab run states on both banks of the canal.  The UK’s role in setting up the state in 1948 and the violence which followed was mentioned.  Balfour also got a mention and by implication the Sykes – Picot Agreement which divided up spheres of interest in the region after the collapse of the Ottoman empire.

    It was noted that, however much we might disapprove of the weapons sales and the use to which they are put, Israel thinks it is fighting and existential war.  Hamas and Hezbollah – as proxies for Iran – are devoted to the destruction of the country and to drive all Jews into the sea.

    While some may have agreed with this, the worry was the disproportionate nature of the destruction.  The seemingly wanton destruction of entire blocks of flats allegedly because it contained a terrorist. The ‘human shield‘ justification was often quoted but seldom evidenced.

    A problem was the hard right and hawkish elements in Israel who were influential it was said.  Although diplomacy was mentioned several times, the present Israeli government is not in any mood to engage in it.  Aggression was ever present with a ‘you kill one of ours and we will kill a hundred of yours’ philosophy.  Both sides have to want peace for a solution eventually to be found.  Israel had to establish relationships with those in the region and – a point made more than once – they were all the same people and shared the same DNA.  Indeed, it was noted that historically in the Middle East, all sorts of communities: Christian, Jewish, Moslem and others lived and traded together in city after city.  It was not true to say there has been a perpetual state of animosity. 

    The role of the Jewish lobby in the US was discussed.  They are influential and powerful and able to get Senators and academics sacked it was claimed.  It was noted that the US supplies the bulk of military materiel: around two thirds of Israel’s needs.  What the UK supplies is small by comparison although we do make parts of the F35 which are not included in the embargo.  When questioned about this the Foreign Secretary, David Lammy, said ‘it was part of a global contract’.  Make of that what you will.  It was also noted that an Israeli arms firm Elbit Systems has a plant in the UK near Bristol.  It is not just arms we supply but it was claimed the UK provides aircraft based in Cyprus to overfly Gaza for intelligence purposes.

    What will be the situation if Trump wins the presidential election next month someone asked?  It was Trump, when president, who ended the deal with Iran.

    It was suggested that a root issue is trauma and Thomas Hübl was mentioned.  The trauma was not just about the holocaust it was claimed. 

    We were reminded that this issue of arms supplies to Israel is not a new one.  Both Mrs Thatcher and Edward Heath imposed sanctions on the country in the past.  In fact, this link shows that six prime ministers have imposed sanctions and hence Labour’s decision is one of a long line of such decisions.

    Another point concerned war crimes and the International Court of Justice. If it is decided against Israel, then the UK will be obliged to end arms sales. 

    We were chided for not answering the question put namely how do we stop the arms sales?  Perhaps another day …

    Peter Curbishley

    In an article by Kenan Malik in the Observer (13 October) he reminds us that Netanyahu supported Hamas as a means to divide the PLO and prevent a Palestinian state.

    [amendment made 13/10: F15 should have been F35]

  • Democracy Café: September

    The power of the media: influence and control

    The group (17 strong this week) met on September 14th as usual in the Library with 2 topics chosen by vote for discussion.

    The first of these was  ”Should the power of the media be in the hands of the people who currently control it?” The media has been a fairly constant topic in our discussions, both national and local.

    Much of the debate centred around trying to understand how influenced people are by the media, both the press and social media. The newspaper market is small and elderly, but dominates politics. It was suggested that papers used to be driven by their readers, but that now the owners choose what is important, and this can be dangerous. Defined as “framing”, this means the reader receiving a partial view, which can be resistant to persuasion. (It was said that positive ideas need 5 times more effort than negative to have an effect).

    Politicians are afraid of the media, but, as one member said, they should “grow a backbone.”

    It was also pointed out that a factor in news reporting is the prevalence of SLAPPS (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation), by which the judiciary can interfere with the publishing of unwelcome information about a person or organization, simply because of the cost of pursuing a case, if charged with defamation. The practice of wealthy litigants paying a sum into court means plaintiffs run the risk of having to pay both sides costs – which runs into millions – if they loose. The Murdochs have paid over £1bn to keep phone hacking out of the news using methods such as this. It’s called ‘British justice’.

    But those under 40 don’t tend to read papers. Social media gives access to your preferences and this leads to confirmation bias. For many, social media is where they are getting nearly all their news. A possible remedy would be to make the algorithms available to the public. (There may also be a need for opportunities to be created to re-educate older people about social media)

    Another suggestion was that The Guardian model of the newspaper being owned by a Trust could be a better option than ownership? Someone else observed that podcasts are a better source of information.

    Likewise with social media sites – open source sites such as Bluesky or Signal don’t use the algorithms that X or TikTok do.

    The recent riots have been a useful indicator of the issues. Certain parts of the Press could be accused of adding fuel to the fire, while ostensibly standing aside. The people on the streets were prosecuted, but not those who incited them. The Government’s subsequent prosecutions did not include some who were implicated in the background.

    In conclusion, we were left wondering “why do people believe what they believe?” Whether we are nearer an answer remains to be seen.

    The second discussion concerned whether the Government should stop selling arms to Israel. Some attendees felt (quite strongly) that there was no justification at all for selling arms, believing that claims of genocide were true. Others were concerned about the possible loss of influence it would involve.

    Questions were asked about the extent of British involvement – we are low on the list of suppliers, but arms sales generally are big business (8-10% of our exports), and it is important in our area, even if more through agencies than actual manufacture. The Foreign Office has an open licence policy, but the new government has withdrawn 30 licences out of about 350 over concerns about international humanitarian law.

    Concern was expressed about proportionality. It was pointed out that Israel’s targeting ability was greater than events would suggest which may have a bearing on what we should sell. They are a powerful military, the most powerful in the region.

    The comparison with our sales to Ukraine was made. The racial angle of the distinction was noted.

    International bodies have agreed that the regime is one of apartheid. This seems to be part of a change in attitude over the course of the war. It was questioned whether younger people who don’t get news from the newspapers (see above; the difficulty of journalists getting to the war zones was also noted) might have a different understanding of the situation. Generally the fear was that (partly due to the change in attitude in the US to its historic policing role) a sense of paralysis has set in. The situation was described as the economic colonization of Israel by the US and the political colonization of the US by Israel.

    A view was expressed that Israel may have no wish to agree a peace deal since off the coast of Gaza is a vast oil and gas field. Were a Palestinian state to have access to this resource, it would alter the politics of the region immensely.

    Clearly not an issue that is going to be resolved soon, but the debate was thoughtful and informative. As so often happens with our debates, the two topics were related since our view of the conflict in Gaza has been powerfully influenced by media coverage and the lack of independent coverage from Gaza itself.

    Andrew Hemming

    – For those interested in further details of arms sales generally, please go the the Campaign Against the Arms Trade site.

    – Glasgow University has a keen interest in media matters and publishes research of interest. Scroll to articles published by the late Greg Philo in particular. See also Bad News (Routledge & Kegan Paul pub)

  • Democracy Café

    February 2024

    A good turnout for two debates as usual the first being a bit of a surprise. The New Statesman in its 2 – 8th February edition had made two serious allegations concerning the MP for Salisbury, Mr John Glen, in a piece entitled: The Rotten State: How corruption and chumocracy are pulling the British Nation apart (subscription needed). The first debate centred on these allegations and what it meant for the future of the MP and the constituency in the forthcoming general election. 

    The two allegations were as follows: ’[…] the Future Fund, established in 2020 by the then chancellor, Rishi Sunak, at a cost of £1.1bn to support British start-ups. The taxpayer has lost almost £300m on the Future Fund, which has given money to the businesses of centimillionaire wife, Ashata Murty, [and] the cabinet office minister John Glen […]’. Mr Glen has shares in a sub-Saharan African mining firm. The second allegation was that Mr Glen attended meetings (which he probably chaired as the City Minister) with the banks to arrange £71bn in loans as part of the Covid recovery. The article suggests that £17bn of this has gone missing according to the Public Accounts Committee. When attempts were made to provide details the journalist was told by the Treasury ‘we do not hold minutes of the meeting’. 

    The proposer of the topic has written to Mr Glen but his answers were somewhat vague. It was up to the Treasury to keep minutes he said. It was quickly noted that this was becoming part of a pattern with large numbers of WhatsApp messages being deleted both in Scotland and in England in connection with the Covid enquiry. It was simply not satisfactory for the business of the country to be run this way with politicians able to delete the records at will or, in the case of Mr Glen, for their to be no record in the first place.

    It was suggested that Covid was an event to enable a large sum of money to be transferred to a small number of people. It was not clear if everyone agreed with this point. The same speaker mentioned Walter Lippmann who spoke about how people were deliberately distracted from the main issue. 

    The fact that there was no mention of these allegations in the Salisbury Journal was a surprise it was suggested. They do not seem to have asked any questions of him or sought a response. Maybe we should all write to the Journal and ask ‘why not?!’ Did it matter who was the MP? someone said. Yes it did and we right to expect a certain standard of honesty and integrity from those who represented us. 

    One speaker said she always got a response when she wrote but many others said they did not. They only got a reply if it was a ‘standard’ one they said. One member had written to him about matters in the Maldives for example which Mr Glen has said he has a special interest in since there was a group of Maldivians who lived in the City. No reply has been received**. Another response was to say as a minister he was unable to interfere in another department. 

    Back to the Journal and it was asked how influential was it? Difficult to answer but it did have a much lower readership which was true of all newspapers it was noted. However, it did give Mr Glen a column each week in which he can tell us what he is doing and as such was a ‘mouthpiece’ for him. 

    There was a brief discussion about the need to improve local journalism and the Trust News Initiative was mentioned.

    The second debate centred on Palestine and ideas around creating a state. The war in Gaza was in full spate at present with a reported 27,000 dead and many thousands missing. The proposer noted that Lord Cameron, the Foreign Secretary, had mooted the idea of a separate Palestinian state. But who would fix the boundaries especially as the Israelis wanted to take more land? Would not be better if the countries of the Middle East held centre stage rather than ‘outside’ countries such as the US?

    One speaker noted that Palestine had been offered statehood in 1948, again after the Yom Kippur war and also after Camp David talks. Each time they have refused. At elections they have voted for Hamas who murdered the opposition and who’s only motive is the extinction of the Jewish State. It was also noted the leadership lived in Qatar. While this may be true, it was noted that Hamas had also been supported by Mr Netanyahu partly to destabilise the Palestinian leadership. 

    This narrative overlooked the significant role played by the US in the region and the powerful influence they had on Middle Eastern politics. The real issue is the relationship between the US and Iran which was a key driver of the politics of the area.

    Several speakers referred to outside influences over history – one even went back to the Romans! Perhaps they might ask in the area ‘what have the Romans ever done for us?’ More recently, Britain took a keen interest because we wanted a secure route for Persian oil through the Suez Canal. Mention was also made of the Balfour Declaration of 1917 and the role of Lloyd George in seeking Jewish support to get the US into WWI. We played a role in the UN Mandate in what was then called Palestine. There was also the secret 1916 Sykes-Picot agreement between France and Britain concerning post-war and post Ottoman spheres of influence in the area. One comment was from someone who served with Army in the area in 1948 in an attempt to keep the peace. He referred to the 900 or so British soldiers who were murdered during this time. Wounds run deep. 

    Latterly, the Americans have held sway. A solution can only come it was said if there was a regional deal. To achieve this some of the Palestinian leadership needed to be released from Israeli gaols. 

    But the overriding series of comments centred on the role of outside influence of one kind or another. The selling of arms by several western countries particularly the US and Britain although Russian and China are involved, can only inflame the situation. The Abrahamic Accords in 2020 were mentioned and the commitment to recognise both sides diplomatically. They were called ‘Abrahamic’ because they recognised Abraham as a common link between the two religions.

    South Africa was mentioned who had launched the case against Israel in the International Criminal Court accusing them of genocide in Gaza which Israel has denied. Could they be mediators? The crucial point someone said was what was needed was a country which didn’t have history in the area. This would rule out USA, Britain, France and some others, all of whom have meddled or had a role in pursuing their interests over the interests of the people who live there. A related factor is possibly a sense of collective and almost atavistic guilt in some of the powers involved especially their bad treatment of Jews over the centuries: their expulsion from York in the twelfth century for example, their expulsion from Spain and so on, not to mention the Holocaust itself. 

    Northern Ireland was mentioned and the decades of the ‘Troubles’. It was eventually resolved by negotiation, pressure on the UK from the US, and a Canadian negotiator. These things can be resolved. In this connection, António Guterres*, the UN General Secretary was suggested as a possible mediator.

    As a final note, the practice of calling someone ‘anti-Semitic’ when they criticised Israel was deprecated. 

    For once, two unrelated debates as different as chalk and cheese (a good Wiltshire based expression). The next meeting is on Saturday 9th March, same place, same time.

    Peter Curbishley

    *Guterres is Portuguese.

    ** Correction 16 February: a reply has now been received and Mr Glen said he will raise the matter with the FCO.

    Books:

    The Palestine – Israel Conflict, 2015, Dan Cohen-Sherbok and Dawoud El-Alami, Oneworld.

    The Balfour Declaration. 2018, Bernard Regan, Verso.

  • Democracy Café

    Report of the Democracy Café which took place on October 14th, 2023

    It was good to welcome several old friends back to the café and a new member as well. The meeting took place exactly a week after the incursion into Israel by Hamas terrorists with a huge death toll among Israelis civilians. Israel retaliated by bombing Gaza and troops are massing on the northern border ahead of an expected invasion. The use of the word ‘terrorist’ in the above sentence is itself a matter of dispute.

    The first topic we chose was: to what extent are our opinions about the conflict influenced by the media reporting of it? Everything we know about the recent actions is as a result of what we have seen on TV, read in the papers or seen on social media of one kind or another. The point was made that everything we see and hear is affected by the media which was often afflicted by mis- or disinformation. The main TV stations (BBC, ITV, Channel 4) are governed by impartiality rules and make great efforts to reflect all sides of a conflict. It has to be noted that not everyone was impressed by this and were not convinced that there was adequate balance in the reporting. Social media on the other hand was not subject to the same rules and were often the source of various conspiracy theories or disinformation. Some thought the coverage by al Jazeera was superior. There was a problem with paywalls: to read what different papers said meant paying to see the content which made commercial sense but did cut people off from accessing a more diverse range of views.

    The BBC in particular had come in for criticism by some politicians (Grant Shapps MP was mentioned) and by GB News for declining to use the word ‘terrorist’ to describe Hamas people who invaded Israel. Hamas is designated a terrorist organisation in the UK and the BBC has used the word particularly in reported speech. In similar fashion, the lack of condemnation was also mentioned as a criticism. The BBC say the word ‘terrorist’ is loaded and they are reluctant to use it. The point was made that people in Gaza might say that the bombing of their communities is an act of terror (because they have been terrorised). I think the point made by several is that the word is highly charged and it becomes difficult to know where to draw the line.

    The BBC was defended by some however and they said that great efforts have been made to be fair in a volatile and fast changing situation. Someone pointed to the interview by Clive Myrie of a Hamas spokesman they thought was was good.

    Several spoke of the history of the conflict going back to the League of Nations and the mandate given to the British to keep the peace in Palestine after the Great War and the creation of the Israeli state in 1948. One speaker had been there in the Army during this latter period so it was interesting to hear of his first hand experience of these historical events. It was suggested that the animosity between Arabs and Jews was centuries old, others pointed out that during the time of the Islamic conquest, Christians, Jews and others continued with their lives as long as they paid their taxes. There were no pogroms. On the other hand it was suggested that the Jews were treated badly in Yemen. One thing was clear however and that was the Palestinians had received a ‘rotten deal’ as they put it following the events of ’48, what they refer to as the naqba (disaster). It was the rapid increase in the number of Jewish settlers after the war which added to the problems.

    Some media commentators had compared Hamas to ISIS and although there were some similarities, they were not motivated by the same things. It was suggested that some think tanks were a better source of information and Chatham House was mentioned.

    It was accepted that there was a lot of history but the fact remains the modern day situation in Gaza was a pressing issue for the two million or so living there. It had been pointed out earlier that Evan Davies on the PM programme on Radio 4 was reluctant to accept the phrase ‘open prison’ to describe conditions there. It was not to excuse their terrible actions but what are they to do? The world had a responsibility to ensure it did not go on and on. It was shocking that in the 21st century, we are witnessing these terrible events.

    There was general agreement that the uncritical and unbalanced support by the US, UK and French governments was to be deplored and offering to provide military support particularly so.

    It was a good debate particularly so in view of the emotive nature of what has taken place in the past week. It was clear that people recognised the historical factors which led to the current conflict. It is probably fair to say that some thought there was bias in the reporting while others thought that the mainstream media had sought, as best they could, to be balanced.

    The second topic was a complete contrast and was a discussion based on what single thing would you change in respect of our government? The proposer noted the preponderance of public school boys (mostly) in our government and civil service. Although only 7% went to these schools, they occupied by some estimates, 40% of key government positions. Eton school had a debating chamber modelled on the House of Commons. Another issue was the high level of investments such people had. What was lacking among them was much in the way of ‘ordinary’ experience whether of employment or life in general. Not allowing the product of private schools into government was not agreed as this would disenfranchise large numbers of people. However banning the paying for education was proposed as happens in several other countries.

    The role of the City of London was mentioned along with the need to bring it fully into the United Kingdom.

    House of Lords came in for some predictable criticism. While the need for a second chamber was recognised, the presence of hereditary peers and the huge numbers of peers was criticised. A better method was proposed involving selecting people based on a representational basis. We might have noted the manner of their appointment and ‘cash for honours’ is often highly questionable. The word ‘bloated’ was used to describe the second chamber.

    The issue of how MPs are selected was brought up. A small panel of local party members choose the candidate sometimes from an approved short-list provided by central office. These people, if elected and if their party formed the government, might find themselves a minister of some kind having never managed or run anything before. Was it any wonder we had government mismanagement on a vast scale? Added to which was the rapid turnover of ministers some of whom only lasted a year or so in post. This brought up the question how did you find ‘decent’ MPs (meaning capable and with appropriate experience) in the first place and more women? It was pointed out that the LibDems did not select their candidates this way and held public meetings to do so.

    It was also pointed out that once a MP became a minister it seemed to reduce his or her ability to act as a representative which is why they were elected in the first place. Writing to the Salisbury MP for example would often elicit the response that as he was a minister he was not at liberty to intervene (in another department). It was a kind of circular nonsense: you elect someone to represent the constituency but they become a minister and thus stop being able to.

    Strong views were expressed about MPs having second jobs: representing their constituents which is what they were elected and paid to do and that should be a full-time occupation, not spending time on a second job.

    There was discussion about the actual shape of the Commons with two sides facing each other rather than a semi-circular arrangement seen in many other chambers around the world – Scotland and Wales for example. It invited exchanges which were little more than shouting matches which put off many people. Someone said they could not bear to watch prime minister’s questions for this reason.

    The voting system itself came in for criticism. A constituency like Salisbury for example is never likely to be other than Conservative despite the presence of many who were not Conservative supporters: they were effectively and permanently disenfranchised. This was an issue supported by Make Votes Matter in Salisbury.

    Other points included do we need a written constitution?

    We did not come to a ‘single thing’ as the question asked perhaps representing the fact that the system was so broken at so many points that no single thing would be enough to fix it.

    The next meeting is on Saturday 11th November, starting at 10.00 in the Library.

    Peter Curbishley

    Books mentioned:

    Information Anxiety, (1989), Richard Saul Wurman

    Chums: How a Tiny Caste of Oxford Tories Took Over the UK (2023), Simon Kuper

    Why we Get the Wrong Politicians (2019), Isabel Hardman

    Not mentioned but relevant: The Palestine-Israel Conflict (2015), Dan Cohen-Sherbok & Dawoud el-Alami. The Balfour Declaration: Empire, the Mandate and Resistance in Palestine (2018), Bernard Regan.