Sir Mischievous Campbell

Sir Menzies Campbell

The Liberal Democrats are at it again.

I have just listened with incredulity to Sir Menzies Campbell, MP for North East Fife and one-time leader of the Liberal Democrats (who else), tell us of his concern for two British passport holders who are today in total fear after Mossad’s alleged assassination in Dubai of Mahmoud al Mabhouh while using fake passports with their names on.

I don’t wish to devalue their fear but from a utilitarian point of view if one had to choose between two people feeling undoubtedly scared and the assassination of someone who Hamas has admitted murdered two Israeli soldiers in 1989 and who is responsible for purchasing armaments from Iran to supply to Hamas in Gaza, leading to the deaths of many Palestinians and Israelis, I know which choice I would go for.

Don’t the Lib Dems know when to stop or even lie low for a while? Whenever there is controversy where Israel “might” be implicated, they are out in force briefing against Israel.

Does Sir Menzies really think that MI6 wouldn’t take the same action if British citizens were about to be “whacked” by someone like Mabhouh?

And does he really think the assassins should have entered Dubai on Israeli passports?

And as a lawyer he might be aware of a certain maxim about being innocent until proven guilty. Obviously not when it comes to Israel! Israel, after all, did admit to the attempted assassination of Khaled Meshall, the political head of Hamas, in Jordan in 1997. There has been no admission forthcoming so far about Dubai.

There are any number of countries who might have wanted Mabhouh dead and for a string of reasons. I am not sure that the Foreign Office summoning the Israeli Ambassador, Ron Prosor, for a dressing down tomorrow is going to shed any light on events that took place in room 230 of the Al Bustan Rotana hotel on the afternoon of January 20. 

To think that Sir Menzies actually applied to be our Prime Minister once. Who would seriously wish to travel on the tube or a bus with him at the helm “playing it by the rules”?

Until Sir Menzies calls for the disbanding of said MI6 he should be dismissed as nothing more than yet another Lib Dem activist who has just got it in for Israel.

17 responses to “Sir Mischievous Campbell

  1. I have little time for Sir Mischievous any more than you do. But you are rather trivialising the issue here which is that the passports of British people were cloned and then used for an intelligence operation, putting those citizens’ lives at risk. The hit was undoubtedly justified, indeed it was a highly professional job which was necessary for Western security. Its professionalism is one of the reasons people point to Mossad, together with the obvious motive for removing a wicked Palestinian terror mastermind. The point is that cloning the passports of live people is a serious issue too and constitutes an element of bungling if those people subsequently cry fowl.

  2. Having said all that, I am sure that ties between MI6 and Mossad will survive this ‘storm in a tea cup’ episode – assuming that this was a Mossad operation of course. And those who predict a ‘chill wind’ blowing between London and Jerusalem rather ignore the fact that our government has been no more than a fairweather friend to its Middle Eastern ally.

  3. Richard:

    There really is very little doubt that this was an Israeli operation (Mossad or other agency) even though its highly unlikely anyone will ever be brought to book.

    Jeremy wrote:

    The hit was undoubtedly justified, indeed it was a highly professional job which was necessary for Western security.

    Western security, eh? Blimey. What do Israel’s self-inflicted security concerns have to do with the security of the West? Hamas is a local resistance group, they have nothing to do with al-Qaeda or any other Global Islamist group.

    And those who predict a ‘chill wind’ blowing between London and Jerusalem rather ignore the fact that our government has been no more than a fairweather friend to its Middle Eastern ally.

    The Government of this country has in fact been a very steadfast ally and friend of the Zionist Entity. I think you confuse our lickspittle representatives with the British People, not all members of which are enamoured with Israel’s oppression of an entire other People.

  4. richardmillett

    Gert,

    “Israel’s oppression of an entire other People”?

    I’m not sure about that. Many Palestinians are very well off in the West and many Palestinians living inside Israel also do well.

    They could also be doing very well in Gaza had Hamas invested the billions of dollars of aid in infrastructure projects and other services instead of Kassam rockets.

    The West Bank also could have been developed much better by know had Arafat not transferred the money to his wife’s Paris bank account.

  5. I say ‘Western security’ because this individual had links with Iran which endangers the security of this country and its other Western allies. Who do you think has supplied the Taleban with explosives for killing our soldiers? Iran. The country’s tentacles of terror stretch across the region and its potential for menace is vast.

  6. Richard:

    As all Hasbaristas you refuse to even acknowledge the reasons for Palestinian resistance. From 1967 to the present day Israel has maintained an occupation deemed illegal even by Israel’s staunchest ally, the US. It has continued, at ever increased rates, to transfer population into that occupied territory (it did withdraw from Gaza, I’ll grant you that), again in contravention of International Law, as condemned all the time also by the US.

    The so-called peace process has benefited only one side (apart from a few pro-Israel/US cronies on the side of Fatah) and that is Israel. Israel could carry on with the ‘process’ for another 50 years: it costs her very little. It’s now very clear to all sides that Israel’s colonisation of the West Bank was intended right from the start to be a game of ‘play for keeps’.

    Jews want the right to live anywhere in the Holy Land? Absolutely 100 % OK with me. But then that right has to be extended to those who are also indigenous to the area. This is what at least Olmert and Barak understand: the logical consequence of continued expansion of Jewish settlements in the WB and E.J’sem is that Israel/Palestine is irretrievably moving towards a one state situation: one state for all with equal rights for all. That’s justice for all.

    Jeremy:

    The Taleban is in fact an enemy of Iran, it has committed acts of terror against Iranians. Iran and the US collaborated for a while on the Taleban problem, temporarily setting their differences aside in the immediate wake of 9/11. Iran isn’t keen on having opium runners on its borders either, as the country has a considerable drugs problem. It has no interest whatsoever in seeing the Taleban and its particularly loony form of Islamist theocracy regain power in Afghanistan.

    Iran is connected to Hizb’allah and Hamas but neither of these pose a security threat to the West. Israel of course will have you believe otherwise by spuriously connecting their oppression of Palestinian resistance to the ‘War on Terror’. Hamas may be Islamists but they are in no way connected to al Qaeda or the Taleban.

  7. Sadly this is not true. It is correct that historically Iran and the Taleban have been foes. This is partly a matter of religious divisions (Iran is Shi’ite and the Taleban are Sunni) but this did not stop links emerging between Hamas and Iran. But in recent years, co-operation between Iran and the Taleban has increased significantly. Tehran has shipped arms, money and anti aircraft missiles to the Taleban and obviously, these have killed scores of Western forces. Iran’s brand of revolutionary fervour is a threat to the moderate Sunni states in the region, including Egypt and the Gulf states, and a nuclear Iran would create an arms race that would clearly be detrimental to the interests of the region as a whole.

  8. Jeremy:

    You have proof of this recent Taleban/Tehran collusion?

    The main reason for pressuring Iran is the fear of loss of Western/Israeli hegemony in the region. Some loss of Western power in the region to Iranian ascendancy (with or without nuclear weapons) is inevitable. Please call a spade a spade…

    As regards the ‘nuclear arms race in the region’, that was started when Israel obtained her nukes, at first in complete secrecy. The Americans were rather furious about it as they wanted toe keep the region free of nuclear weapons. The genie’s now been out of the bottle for some time.

  9. richardmillett

    Gert,

    All discussions about “illegal occupation” are semantic because it can be argue both ways.

    You are an anti-Zionist so you will make every argument against a Jewish state anyway.

    Most Jews don’t want to live anywhere in the Holy Land, they just want a Jewish state and that means inside the Green Line with some sort of land-swap agreement for the main settlements.

    In 1937 the Jews even accepted just 20% of the land but that was rejected by the Arab leaders, leaving European Jews to a ghastly fate.

    “One state” is not justice for the Jewish people. Justice is two states for two people. The Palestinins never had a state before.

    As for the Palestinians being indigenous to the area, well that is not quite the truth. If you do some basic research you will see that there was a large influx of Arabs into the area as the Jewish population grew.

  10. All discussions about “illegal occupation” are semantic because it can be argue both ways.

    Do you think the occupation of Belgium by Nazi Germany was a matter of semantics too?

    The occupation is considered illegal by just about the entire International Community.

    Most Jews don’t want to live anywhere in the Holy Land, they just want a Jewish state and that means inside the Green Line with some sort of land-swap agreement for the main settlements.

    Really? What about the many that clamour for Greater Israel, Arab-free please? What about the continued colonisation of the WB? If Israel’s democracy is so great and most Israelis oppose colonisation, then what gives? How come all Israeli Governments have gone ahead and even incentivated it nonetheless?

    In 1937 the Jews even accepted just 20% of the land but that was rejected by the Arab leaders, leaving European Jews to a ghastly fate.

    Had there been a democratic plebiscite on the matter (instead of Western Powers in their eternal wisdom trying to impose a highly unjust solution) the Zionists would have lost too.

    Show me one (ONE!) historical situation where an indigenous people accepted to become displaced people in their own land. Just one, Richard, no more…

    As regards the ghastly fate of the Jews it’s preposterous to blame the Arabs for that. The idea that European Jews would have flocked en masse to Palestine to save themselves from the Holocaust isn’t just simplistic, it’s ahistorical.

    “One state” is not justice for the Jewish people. Justice is two states for two people. The Palestinins never had a state before.

    Neither did the Jews, at least not in the modern sense of the word.

    As for the Palestinians being indigenous to the area, well that is not quite the truth. If you do some basic research you will see that there was a large influx of Arabs into the area as the Jewish population grew.

    Assume for argument sake that, like the earliest Zionist myth will have you believe, that Palestine was in fact completely empty, not an Arab in sight. Now European Jews start arriving there and are allowed to. But Arabs arriving there wouldn’t be allowed? How much more racist do you want to get, Richard?

    By the way, old timer British fans of old style Apartheid use that argument too: ‘Whitey got there first, then the stupid Blacks came along to steal it from us’. Tosh and poppycock.

  11. richardmillett

    The occupation is considered illegal by just about the entire International Community:

    Not by America.

    What about the many that clamour for Greater Israel, Arab-free please?:

    There is a settlement freeze at the moment. There was a strong left in Israel which has been reduced to nothing due to Hamas suicide bombings and their Charter that calls for death to Jews.

    the Zionists would have lost too:

    I am sure. But that is why international law tried to intervene. I don’t think 20% is too much to ask for. Do you?

    Show me one (ONE!) historical situation where an indigenous people accepted to become displaced people in their own land:

    There were two indigenous people there; Arabs and Jews. No one was due to be displaced if the Arabs had accepted the division of the land. I mean trans-Jordan was carved out of the Mandate but obviously that wasn’t enough to satisfy the Arabs either.

    Neither did the Jews, at least not in the modern sense of the word:

    I agree and that is why both people deserve their own state. That said Jews were the earliest predominant people in the area in ancient times.

    Assume for argument sake that, like the earliest Zionist myth will have you believe, that Palestine was in fact completely empty, not an Arab in sight:

    I have never said that. I am just undermining your false claim that the Palestinians are all indigenous to the area. Jews and Palestinians are as indigenous as each other to the area.

    Gert, you just cannot accept a Jewish state. You should be supporting the creation of a Palestinian state alongside a Jewish one to bring peace. The Jewish one is going nowhere.

  12. Richard:

    Not by America.

    Please explain.

    There is a settlement freeze at the moment. There was a strong left in Israel which has been reduced to nothing due to Hamas suicide bombings and their Charter that calls for death to Jews.

    The settlement freeze is very partial. We shouldn’t be talking about a settlement freeze but about withdrawal, if you truly believe in a two state solution. We shouldn’t be talking about settlements, period, they should never have been allowed, if you truly believe in a two state solution.

    I am sure. But that is why international law tried to intervene. I don’t think 20% is too much to ask for. Do you?

    Ask any country to give up 20 % of their territory and imagine the reply you’d get. Double standards.

    I agree and that is why both people deserve their own state. That said Jews were the earliest predominant people in the area in ancient times.

    and:

    I have never said that. I am just undermining your false claim that the Palestinians are all indigenous to the area. Jews and Palestinians are as indigenous as each other to the area.

    It’s Zionism and Zionists that constantly hark back to ‘indigenousness’, not me. People lived there at the time of start of the Zionist project: Muslims and Jews, to me they were ‘indigenous’. How long they had lived there matters not one iota. Before ‘ancient times’ people lived there too without a doubt. So what? Are you related to them as well?

    Gert, you just cannot accept a Jewish state. You should be supporting the creation of a Palestinian state alongside a Jewish one to bring peace. The Jewish one is going nowhere.

    I’ve accepted Israel for twenty years and hoped for a two state solution. Over such a long period of time, one inevitably draws conclusions about Israel’s interest in a two state solution: 40 years of unabated colonising of the WB and somewhat more recently also E.J’sem, and now only an imbecile, a cynic or a blindly partisan person would still believe in Israel’s Hasbara. Even Lieberman, an advocate of the two state solution (well, of sorts) understands that holding on to the settlements (with land swaps) would be the only possibility to achieve such a ‘solution’.

    How can these settlements in any way shape or form be considered to contribute to Israel’s security (unless it really is willing to use its own as human shields, of course)?

    As regards the Zios’ obsession with Hamas, without occupation of Gaza (second occupation, really), there would have been no Hamas. No occupation, no resistance to occupation.

  13. richardmillett

    Gert,

    America views the WB as disputed territory (which it is), not “occupied”.

    Even Arafat negotiated the Oslo peace process on the basis that the settlements would stay and there would be land swaps. That is why the settlements grew during Oslo. Now Arafat is dead everyone is saying the settlements should go. You cannot withdraw 300,000-400,000 people. 7,000 was hard enough.

    20% of their territory: It wasn’t their territory. Where does it say it was theirs? It was Tukish, if anything.

    You are the one who brought up indigenousness as if it proves that the Palestininians have a claim to the whole of the land because there was some thriving long, established built up country there. There wasn’t the case though.

    Over such a long period of time, one inevitably draws conclusions about Israel’s interest in a two state solution:

    You have a right to draw these conclusions. But take a look at Article 8 et al of the Hamas Charter and that tells you all you need to know about Hamas’ view of a two state solution.

    Long before the occupation there were wars fought against israel and thousands of cross-border raids into Israel. The Arabs don’t object to the occupation, they object to Israel per se.

    Israel can hand back the West Bank in toto and i doubt very much there will be peace.

    Not that is makes a difference but how may Muslim and/or Arab nations are there?

  14. Richard:

    America views the WB as disputed territory (which it is), not “occupied”.

    The argument that the territory is ‘disputed’, not occupied is the argument made by those who oppose a two state solution, such as Melanie Phillips and Danny Ayalon.

    Oslo was about some major settlement blocs, not all of them. It [the unwillingness to withdraw, even stop settling] shows though that, as Ben Gurion also made clear, that Zionism was never going to accept partitioning and sees Palestine as the entire Jewish homeland. Perhaps with a bit on the side too: Lebanon up to the Litani, parts of Syria. Isn’t that where the ancient Jewish kingdoms are supposed to have stretched too, if you believe ‘Ye Olde Mappes’?

    20% of their territory: It wasn’t their territory. Where does it say it was theirs? It was Tukish, if anything.

    That’s an argument that only works if you look at the Arabs as some kind of an abstraction that can be moved across the chessboard like a pawn. For individuals who are the victim of Israel’s ethnic cleansing it’s quite a different story.

    You are the one who brought up indigenousness as if it proves that the Palestininians have a claim to the whole of the land because there was some thriving long, established built up country there. There wasn’t the case though.

    Oh, but it was. Almost none of Israel’s historians doubt that. At the time Zionism started the land of Palestine wasn’t even sparsely populated by demographic numbers typical of that era.

    Yours is a slightly watered down version of ‘a land without people for a people without land’.

    You have a right to draw these conclusions. But take a look at Article 8 et al of the Hamas Charter and that tells you all you need to know about Hamas’ view of a two state solution.

    You claim to have studied the conflict and to be an independent journalist. In that case it’s reasonable to assume you know that Hamas’ stance on a Palestinian State has changed enormously over the last three years or so. Even the notoriously pro-Zionist New York Times had at least the honesty to publish last year a (heavily edited) interview with Khalid Mechal in which he (once again) outlined Hamas’ acceptance of a two state solution along (roughly) 1967 borders, shared capital J’sem in return for a long term truce. Please don’t feign ignorance.

    Of course you can keep harking back to the charter and run into a typically Zionist logical cul-de-sac. Because Hamas isn’t going anywhere either. So unless you’re willing to entertain the idea of an almost infinite series of Operation Cast Leads to try and capture or kill every Hamasnik down to the last man (and run up a phenomenal bill in terms of ‘collateral damage’ too), only negotiation can lead out of the impasse.

    Long before the occupation there were wars fought against israel and thousands of cross-border raids into Israel. The Arabs don’t object to the occupation, they object to Israel per se.

    Israel is the occupation. Had a group of people (bound by whatever ‘defining’ trait) tried to create a homeland smack-bang in the middle of Europe on the territory that wasn’t unclaimed, European nations would have intervened drastically. When Arabs do exactly the same, that’s suspect (antisemitism is implied of course). Hypocrisy to high heaven.

    Israel can hand back the West Bank in toto and i doubt very much there will be peace.

    In that case, why support a two state solution?

    Not that is makes a difference but how may Muslim and/or Arab nations are there?

    If it doesn’t make a difference then why bring it up? I dunno: 3,000? It’s immaterial. Unless Arabs are an abstraction that can be moved across the chessboard like a pawn, of course…
    Richard, not only are you a committed Zionist, you’re also not really a two stater either.

  15. richardmillett

    Hi Gert,

    Oslo was about some major settlement blocs, not all of them:

    I agree.

    That’s an argument that only works if you look at the Arabs:

    Exactly. They were Arab at the time. No one thought to think of them as Palestinian. Many Arab states were created; Jordan, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon. Palestine contained 5% of the people that exist there today. It wasn’t too much of an injustice to want to create a Jewish state in it in light of the pogroms at the time.

    I don’t think Meshal said anything of the sort if you look at his words closely. He might be someone with both Israeli and Palestinian blood on his hands but he is wise not to say such things.

    And it wouldn’t make sense anyway because that is the same stance as Fatah/PLO.

    on the territory that wasn’t unclaimed:

    It was claimed by two sides, not one. Jews lived there as well as Muslims. Muslim/Arab countries were being created, Christian countries had been created, so from a justice point of view a Jewish state should be created.

    Palestinian consciousness grew as a consequence of the Zionist narrative. This coalesced into the PLO around 1964.

    When the Jews started to arrive in the Ottoman province that was to become Palestine the 500,000 or so Arab people were tribal with no national consciousness.

    That doesn’t mean the Palestinians shouldn’t have a state. They are a people. But to suggest this is some ancient, indigenous civilisation is not true.

    I want a two state solution but i am cynical that it can happen. I’d be happy if i was proved wrong.

  16. Hi Richard,

    Since as this discussion is going nowhere, yet is time consuming, I’ll close and let you have the defense have the last word.

    The ‘Arab/Palestinian’ ‘national identity/non-statehood/status as a ‘Real People’ (or not)/indigenousness/ancientness or not/ etc etc’ arguments matter not one iota and are in essence racist arguments. What matters is that people lived there at the time, completely legally and that large numbers were expelled for resisting the creation of a state they didn’t need or want. Early Palestinian resistance concentrated entirely on the RoR, they weren’t bothered about ‘National’ aspirations, that came later (again, thanks to Zionism!) Today, Azzam Tamimi still says: ‘f*ck a state, I just want to return!’ He’s right.

    Regarding Mechal and many other Hamas leaders’ statements regarding a TSS on 1967 borders, shared capital in return for a long term truce, just pretending you’re deaf doesn’t mean they don’t say it loud and clear. Just because Western MSM are somewhat reluctant to report on it doesn’t mean the offer isn’t on the table. It is. Very visibly so.

    As regards the pogroms, that sums up Zionism quite succinctly: carry out pogroms against a people that hasn’t done anything wrong to you in order to secure your own safety and well being. The security of one people can never be achieved to the detriment of the safety and well being of another: that’s fighting evil with evil.

    Finally, I saw your contribution to Fine Print last night: at least we can agree on one thing; the Mossad carried out the operation in Dubai.

  17. richardmillett

    well i presume it did, but i don’t know Mossad did it.

    I wouldn’t follow Tamimi as a role model after some of his statements about suicide bombings.

    Zionism was never about attacking another people. Zionism is just about self-determination for the Jewish people at the expense of no one.

    No one wanted the Arabs to leave. It all took place in war. If the Arabs had won we would now be having a completely different discussion.

    They lost and for some reason you and Tamimi cannot accept that. If you start a war you can’t complain if you lose it and then claim you want to return to the status quo.

    Two peoples claimed the same piece of land. It had to be divided. The Arabs didn’t want to divide it. At the time they wanted it all. It is as simple as that.