Author: R J Adams

The case of the fifteen sailors detained by Iran for allegedly straying into Iranian territorial waters is shaming both America and the UK. The belligerence presently being spouted by both nation’s leaders can do nothing but rack up tensions and prevent any hope of an early release for those concerned.

Tony Blair and George Bush have each expressed disgust that the British sailors were “paraded on Iranian television”, a somewhat hypocritical stance given the many Middle Eastern prisoners held and tortured in secret CIA prisons, the debacle of Abu Ghraib, and the oft televised “detainees” held for five years without trial at Guantanamo Bay detention center. We are all too familiar with their bright orange jumpsuits thanks to CNN, NBC, ABC, and a host of other networks, including the BBC.

Both Blair and Bush are responsible for crimes against humanity, so their theatrical, self-righteous, posturing can hardly be taken seriously by their own countrymen – although there will always be those with a misplaced sense of nationalism, ready to jump on any militarist bandwagon – let alone the Iranians.

Why are some Iranians protesting on the streets of Tehran, demanding the trial – and in some cases, execution – of the British sailors? They are simply Iranian equivalents of the Americans and British who scream for Iranian blood over this issue. In all cases, a vocal minority hyped up by the media of all three countries.

Today, in Britain, Terry Waite – himself held hostage in Lebanon for five years – offered to travel to Iran and negotiate for the release of the British detainees. He insisted he would not go as an envoy of the British government, but as a private individual to negotiate in a humane and non-confrontational manner.

No nation can ever be more mature than the leader it elects. Tony Blair and George Bush display the wisdom of delinquent second-graders trying to retrieve their ball, taken from them by an overdeveloped kindergarten kid.

Perhaps one day, our nations may be wise enough to elect leaders with the maturity and wisdom of Terry Waite.

Filed under: Kiddies playing politics

What is it with Americans and cancer? Every night this week NBC Nightly News has run another pathetic, embarrassingly nerve-tingling, segment extolling the virtues of ‘celebs’ who have ‘battled’ the dreaded BIG “C”.

“It’s Making a Difference,” quoth Brian “the overly-sentimentalist” Williams, as yet another “survivor” recalls their courageous endeavors to overcome the enemy within, desperate to rob its victim of life itself. Nothing is said of the vast sums of money these well-stashed celebs pay for the finest, and most expensive, treatment America’s specialists can provide. The poor old guy living on a pittance in downtown Kalamazoo is hardly likely to be inspired by tales of Sheryl Crow’s “courageous battle”, or that of some NBC glamor girl.

Cancer is an illness, certainly not to be glorified the way so many Americans glorify war. It bears no relation to war, which is deliberately self-imposed. Illness can overtake the body for many reasons, but “battling” with it seldom achieves a positive result. Though, outrageously costly medical treatment may prove helpful – to the few who can afford it.

Filed under: No heroics please

On March 28th, 2002, Arab leaders endorsed a plan put forward by Saudi crown prince Abdullah, for a peace agreement with Israel. Here’s how it was reported in the Guardian newspaper of the day:

“…….The plan, proposed by Saudi Arabia’s crown prince Abdullah, offers a “normalisation” of relations with Israel if it withdraws from all occupied Arab land, accepts a Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital and agrees to the return of Palestinian refugees.

The Lebanese foreign minister, Mahmoud Hammoud, said that once Israel has fulfilled the Arab demands, “the Arab-Israeli conflict would be considered finished and [the two sides] would enter into a peace treaty and achieving security for all countries of the region and establish normal relations with Israel”. Endorsement came a day after the Saudi crown prince presented his proposals at the Arab League summit in Beirut……”

Israel rejected the agreement out of hand and it has lain on the table ever since.

Yesterday – five years on from that agreement – Arab leaders endorsed a plan, as reported in the Guardian newspaper:

“……offering Israel recognition and security in exchange for a return to 1967 borders and a “just solution” to the issue of Palestinian refugees………The declaration from the Riyadh summit……..calls for “a just and comprehensive peace”, and says Israel should surrender the West Bank, East Jerusalem, the Gaza Strip and Golan Heights, all conquered in the six days war in June 1967.””

According to today’s Guardian, Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert, “……welcomed a land-for-peace deal offered by Arab states as a “revolutionary change”…….”

Where has he been these past five years?

Filed under: None so blind