My Letter To George Galloway

Below is a letter I have just sent to George Galloway MP regarding his upcoming attendance at Warwick University's Middle East and Africa Forum.

"Dear Mr Galloway,

I am a Warwick University Student who has recently purchased a ticket to attend the Middle East and Africa Forum you will be attending on 2nd March. In light of recent events at the University of Oxford, I feel I should inform you ahead of time that there may be Israelis present at the event. Indeed, for what it is worth, I, myself, hold an Israeli passport (with some pride I may add). I hope you will see my good intentions for I only do so because I do not want a situation where you feel that you have been misled in anyway as you claimed to have been with the Oxford University debate you so superbly stormed out of.

I look forward to an engaging debate and forum where all opinions are heard, listened to and respected regardless of already held beliefs.

Yours Sincerely,

Raphael Levy (Oh I am Jewish as well)"

I doubt I will get a reply. Maybe, just maybe, Mr Galloway will surprise us all and inform me that he shares my anticipation for a proper debate with all those present on the topics that will be discussed at the forum in question. Seeing as he has blocked me on Twitter I do not think I will hold out much hope.

Grumbles about Gun Control

Some say I moan too much. It is probably difficult for me to disagree with that, especially given the nature of this post. The gun control debate is an interesting one. Once you get rid of the, and excuse my frankness, nut-jobs who think "1776 will commence again" or that 9/11 was an inside job, for example, I think there are arguments on both sides. Let's be clear, I do not for a minute support having armed guards outside schools, but some of the "Gun Control isn't the answer" arguments have some strength - namely that the cause of gun murders (whilst not helped by guns - duh!) are not solely caused by the ease of getting guns, necessarily. Things like mental health checks, better background checks and a programme to change the gun culture in America are all policies which can be implemented without actually restricting the sale of guns to people that "the right" believe are entitled to them (although we can argue all day long about whether anyone needs a semi-automatic rifle, for example). And if anything, I think these are all policies which will be much more effective than banning certain types of guns or all guns, in America at least.

The point of this blog, however, is not to argue for or against gun control but it indicates 12 major grumbles I have with the pro-gun arguments. It is attempts at arguments like these which make me support Barack Obama in America because the alternative is the sort of people who think the below points are good ones. It says a lot about the state of the American right that I support Barack Obama almost out of pity because he has to put up with such irrational, moronic and patently absurd opposition. Anyway:

1. "Handguns are the major cause of gun murders, not semi-automatic rifles, why don't you ban those?" which is usually preceded or followed by "You are anti the second amendment".

Look, you can wave your stats at me (or, rather, Ben Shapiro can wave them at Piers Morgan) all day long, we can have a debate about that if you want, keeping in mind, all the while, what Disraeli said about statistics: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics". What infuriates me is when you try and argue that people who support a ban on semi-automatic rifles but not handguns are anti-constitutional. It does not say anywhere that Americans have a right to semi-automatic rifles. In fact, the reason most people aren't in favour of banning handguns is exactly for the opposite of what you seem so relaxed about accusing them of. They aren't anti-constitutional, rather they are pro the constitution - they support the right of Americans to own a handgun (and thus bear arms). They just happen to think that a semi-automatic rifle is not necessary. And you know what? It probably isn't. But either way, accusing someone of being anti-constitutional for wanting to ban semi-automatic rifles and then asking them why they don't ban handguns is ludicrous. You simply cannot have it both ways - stop trying to paint some of these people as anti-constitutional when really they just want fair and proper gun control all the while supporting what I, as Brit who feels able to solve his problems with a good dose of sarcasm and not pissing people bigger than me off, think is a ludicrous right to bear arms.

2. "How can you support gun control, you support abortion"

This is usually followed by a number of abortions carried out in the USA. I understand why people do this - if you're so concerned by the death of innocent children, then you should be pro-'life' (why the anti-abortion campaign is labelled as 'pro-life' when it is a) in no way pro the life of the women forced to have a baby and b) simply anti-choice - the right would not like that!) because life begins in the womb. However, the whole point about pro-choice people is that they do not believe this and to base an argument on this premise being accepted when it simply is not is plain lazy. Ignoring that, it is also irrelevant. They are two separate arguments and, frankly, I'm tired of people trying to get in a case for abortion being illegal when arguing about gun control. Stop changing the subject. 

3. "Barack Obama has bodyguards, why shouldn't our children?"

On the face of it, this seems a reasonable point. When you have a little think, you will realise just how absurd the link made to make this point is. When someone goes off to kill innocents for whatever reason, he does so without due care and attention to whom he kills - armed guards at a school, children, bystanders - it really doesn't matter to him or her who ends up dead. However, when someone attempts to kill the President, killing 3 secret service staff and a butler really does not send the same message. Therefore it makes sense to protect the President to ensure that this *target* survives. Armed guards, however, cannot protect every target of the mass murderer which is simply "anyone". Try harder. Make better arguments for putting guns in schools. By children. 

4. "But we need our guns to defend ourselves against the government"

This is usually followed by some reference to either Hitler or a collection of mass murderers who took the guns before embarking on their programme of mass murder. It is comments like this that make me think humanity is a lost cause and the only way it is redeemed is if there are just a huge amount of internet trolls about. Aside from the fact it is simply incredibly disrespectful to the millions who suffered at the hand of the Nazis, let's take a moment to consider what this comparison means. Essentially, gun control is what led to 6 million Jews dying. Not Hitler. Not hateful ideology. But gun control. How ignorant, disrespectful and frankly disgraceful. Sigh. But yes, back the point. Let's ignore the reference to history and people like Hitler and concentrate on the absurd notion that a semi-automatic rifle will be a defence against the military power of the United States. Even the most insane right-wing American idiot must realise that this is a ludicrous reason to have guns. Putting aside the fact that Obama is not going to start a civil war against America (no matter what the American right may believe), if he chose to and really wanted to, I think he'd win. Semi-automatics banned or not. So please stop it.

5. *Insert Gun Control Advocate Here* is dancing on the graves of children

Often followed by the brilliant, "I bet you are happy those children died, it allows you to advance your agenda." What?! Other than making it sound like the agenda is, wait for it, for kids not to die, this is such a horrible point to make. Let's be quite clear, not one gun control advocate wants kids to die - that is kind of the point and to claim they are happy that massacres happen so they can advance a case for gun control is ludicrous. Argue for no gun control all you want. Make salient points though, ones that don't require you to claim that people are happy kids die.

6. "I THOUGHT BOMBS WERE ILLEGAL"

I tweeted a few hours after the tragic Boston Marathon explosions, asking how long it would be before someone tweeted something along the lines of explosives being illegal in reference to gun control. I am afraid "Making things illegal doesn't stop them happening" is not an argument. It's not a valid point. It requires a very loose definition of the word point to be one. It's barely a relevant statement. If I'm honest I cannot believe I only just remembered this one now. Sigh.

*In other news, could I just add my voice to the growing number expressing condolences and well wishes to all those affected by the tragic events that unfolded in Boston earlier today. Let's hope the perpetrators are brought to justice quickly.*

7. Ah, but the statistics show that these states with stricter gun control actually have higher gun murder rates.

Um. No. Just no. If you think this is a good argument look up the following words in a dictionary: 'correlation', 'does', 'not', 'imply' and 'causation'. We all know statistics are misleading:

Have you stopped to consider how many of those murders were with guns bought in that particular state? In other words, the issue is not gun control but the lack of it in surrounding states. Was the murder carried out by a gun holder who purchased his gun legally in a state with lax gun laws and would not have been able to purchase it in the state with stricter gun laws?

Have you done research into how many of those 'murders' were suicide? Or accidental? I.e. because of the existence of guns in the first place, not the lack of the beautifully named 'good guy with a gun'.

Have you examined the type of gun control in place against that which is being proposed? Not all gun control is the same, surprisingly, so you cannot blanket reject anything termed gun control based on statistics from a state which may have a completely different type of gun control.

Until you do all this research, your statistic is a meaningless number. You may as well tell me the number of people who purchase tomatoes in Dorset.

8. "Criminals break the law anyway."

So legalise everything? I really do not get this point. Of course, criminals break the law, that is not an argument to not have laws.

9. "Murder can be carried out with any object"

You try killing 30 people with a vegetable peeler.

10. "Guns don't kill people, people kill people"

This is akin to the above grumble and indeed can be responded in exactly the same way (i.e. guns make it easier to kill people) but let's accept the logic for a minute. I agree, people do kill people. So perhaps we should have some sort of legislation that...erm...you know...er...checks what sort of people we let buy guns? Like background checks on the people trying to purchase a gun. Revolutionary.

11. "But we are judging all *law abiding* gun owners by the actions of a few nutters"

I just saw this tweet RTed onto my timeline:

 "Don't judge all Muslims by the acts of a few nutters...but the acts of a few nutters makes it ok to judge all *law-abiding* gun owners?"

Ignoring the fact this was the sort of person who absolutely does judge all Muslims by the actions of a few, this is just a ludicrous point to try and make. Firstly, and most importantly, there is no comparison between calling for gun control and suggesting that maybe it is just little teeny tiny bit racist (or, you know, very racist) to argue all Muslims are suicide bombers or terrorists. Absolutely no comparison whatsoever. I mean, is the point this person is making that, because we do not call all Muslims terrorists, we should not have gun control? Seriously? Behave.

12. Gun Control wouldn't have stopped massacre X or event Y

First off, is it not interesting how the NRA and gun nuts in America seem to have an apparently exclusive ability to predict exactly what would have happened if something had been the case. More importantly, this is simply irrelevant. Even if I accepted that gun control would not have prevented massacre X, this does not then entail we should all do absolutely nothing about gun violence. For some reason, gun control is held to this impossibly high standard where it needs to solve all problems ever for the rest of time. It seems to me that even if a direct link between enacting gun control and ending all wars could be found the NRA would still be against it. They'd probably complain it didn't cure cancer or something. Go away.

I have edited this post a few times now. One day it might just be complete and I will have exhausted the list of stupid, lazy and frankly absurd arguments people make against the gun control case. Until then I will continue adding to this list. Whether I am pro or anti guns (I think you can pretty much guess) is irrelevant, I enjoy debating. What I do not enjoy is lazy or ignorant people throwing meaningless statistics at me or making lazy arguments to make emotive points. There is a real debate to be had about whether gun control will work in America and I think it is a good debate. Unfortunately, I think that even with banning high capacity magazines or semi-automatic rifles, the murder rate in America due to gun violence will not fall significantly nor will there be fewer mass shootings. Why? In part, because the right is correct to say people who want to kill will find a way to do so (this does not then imply "GIVE EVERYONE GUNS"), but more importantly because of improper background checks, mental health ignorance and the gun culture that exists in the US. So it is not as simple as banning guns, a select few or all of them, the three aforementioned things need to be changed in addition and as a priority.

The World's Gone Crazy

I live in a Western Liberal Democracy. My mum as a woman has full human rights; I am free to practise my religion; I do not live in fear of suicide bombers or a repressive regime. I really have no reason to be fed up, to have had enough, to be frustrated but for some reason, I am. Why? Because the world's gone crazy.

I live in a world where it is debated by Human Rights Watch whether Iran's repeated calls for the destruction of Israel are illegal with the ultimate conclusion, so far, that this is just fine but the worlds' leaders and media fall over themselves to blast Israel for authorising plans to build houses in land that is rightfully theirs under Oslo.

I live in a world where the murder of anywhere between 60,000 and 120,000 (your guess is as good as mine) Syrians is completely acceptable provided they are murdered by conventional means and not through the use of chemical weapons but where Israel's fundamental right to self-defence against terrorists committed to her destruction is called into question.

I live in a world where Hamas and Fatah fire rockets indiscriminately at Israeli civilians but it is only Israel's retaliation aimed at killing terrorists and only terrorists that is deemed worthy of media attention.

I live in a world where Syrian babies are dying daily but this brought to the world's attention only through Hamas' use of pictures of the Syrian war dead as pictures from Gaza.

I live in a world where the UN debates 21 resolutions on Israel and only one on Syria, setting a on hour time limit for this resolution leaving the rest of the day to debate an Israeli one, but it is Israel's reaction to constant rocket fire that is deemed disproportionate.

I live in a world where there is an Arab state in Egypt, Algeria, Sudan, Iraq, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Syria, Tunisia, Somalia, UAE, Libya, Jordan, Lebanon, Mauritania, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Bahrain, Djibouti and Comoros but it is the existence of the one Jewish State which prevents peace.

I live in a world where the Arab World refuse to recognise a (Jewish) State of Israel; sponsor, partake and glorify terror; refuse every peace deal that has ever been offered; have declared wars of destruction against Israel on more than one occasion and a Palestinian Authority that rejects negotiations in favour of unilateral moves; has no authority in half the state set aside for a future Palestinian one yet it is Israeli actions which are deemed counter productive to peace.

I live in a world where the Palestinian Leadership and Arab world harbour no desire for peace, seek the ultimate destruction of Israel and are willing to go to any lengths to achieve this goal, but the world presses Israel to do more to achieve peace.

Finally, I live in a world where all of the above is true for the simple fact that Israel is a Jewish state.

Posted with Blogsy

A Few Questions for Palestinian Statehood

On Thursday, the United Nations will vote (almost certainly) to recognise a Palestinian State based on Pre-1967 borders. They will do so primarily through a hatred of Israel (Abba Eban once remarked, "If Algeria introduced a resolution that stated the Earth was flat and Israel had flattened it, it would pass by a vote of 164 to 13 with 26 abstentions) but also through a sheer ignorance of the situation and the recent history of the Israel/Palestine conflict (no Biblical history needed). Perhaps it is worth clarifying that when I refer to Palestinians, I do mean the Palestinian leaders (the same goes for Arabs). Whilst I would argue that if there was a strong desire for peace at the level of the average Palestinian, there would be more efforts to force their leaders' hands into pursuing a peace agenda, I feel it is unfair to label all Palestinians as anti-peace simply for the lack of these moves. They live under regimes that dictate what they should believe, restricting their rights and blaming the resulting suffering on Israel and therefore if peace is to come in this situation, it must come from the Palestinian leaders. However, they simply do not want peace. The problem is not the general population but the leaders themselves. You can argue for days about barriers to peace on both sides - settlements, the Israeli position on Jerusalem, rocket fire, terrorist attacks etc etc etc, but none of these get to the heart of the matter: The Arabs do not want peace or care about a Palestinian state but genocide of the Jews and the destruction of the (Jewish) state of Israel.

For all of you who find my previous comment offensive, wrong, ignorant, any of the above or anything similar I politely request you answer the following questions:

1. If the Palestinians had a true desire for peace, why did they reject the 1947 UN partition plan which (having already designated 4/5 of the Palestine Mandate to Arabs in the form of Jordan) established a Jewish state and an Arab state in the remaining 1/5, with about 50% of the land each?
2. If the Arab World truly desired peace, why did they react to the establishment of a Jewish State by launching a war filled with hatred to destroy this Jewish state resulting only hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees?
3. If the Arab World was so genuinely concerned with the establishment of a Palestinian State (ignoring the existence of a Palestinian state in Jordan), why did Jordan and Egypt not establish a one in the West Bank and Gaza which they respectively occupied between 1949 and 1967?
4. If the Arab World so desired peace why did they decide the best way to achieve this would be by launching yet another war of hatred against Israel in 1967? 
5. What happened the last time an Arab nation was occupying the West Bank and what does this tell you about the current desire to reestablish Arab occupation of the West Bank? 
6. If the Palestinians genuinely only wanted a Palestinian State with eastern Jerusalem as its capital why have the rejected every single offer of a state which includes this? 
7. If the Palestinians want peace, why did the withdrawal from the Gaza strip in 2005 lead to the election of Hamas and constant rocket fire against Israeli civilians?
8. If the Palestinians genuinely want peace with Israel and a two state solution, why do they continue to insist on the right of return of Palestinian refugees (made so by the 1947 war of hatred against Israel) to flood Israel with Palestinian Arabs so rendering it a defacto Palestinian state? 
9. If the Palestinians believe in a two state solution, why do Arab states continue to not recognise the existence of Israel but rather call for the destruction of the Zionist entity?
10. If Palestinians genuinely desired peace, why do they insist on preconditions before even entering peace negotiations?
11. How do you explain the continued use of violence and terrorism against the Jewish population of Israel (and indeed the world)?
12. If the Arab world cared so much about the Palestinians why:

• Did Jordan's Regime murder thousands of Palestinians in 1970?
• Do they not have the right to own property or land, access the health system and require special permits to leave their refugee camps in Lebanon?
• Do Palestinians in Egypt have restrictions on the most basic of human rights?
• Does Hamas store and fire its rockets from within the civilian population in Gaza, using them as human shields against Israel, actively putting them in harms way?
• Is it in Israel that Palestinians enjoy the greatest level of human and civil rights, religious freedom, political representation etc?

Perhaps I can help you out:

1. Because they do not want peace with Israel, they want the destruction of Israel. 
2. Because they do not want peace with Israel, they want the destruction of Israel.
3. Because they do not care about the establishment of a Palestinian state alongside Israel, but a Palestinian state to replace Israel. In short, because they do not want peace with Israel, they want the destruction of Israel.
4. Because they do not want peace with Israel, they want the destruction of Israel.
5. A war was launched against Israel to cause its destruction. They continue to not want peace with Israel but a platform from which to launch the destruction of Israel. 
6. Because they do not want peace with Israel, they want the destruction of Israel. 
7. Because they do not want peace with Israel, they want the destruction of Israel.
8. Because they reject the existence of Israel.
9. Because they do not want peace with Israel, they want the destruction of Israel.
10. Because they do not want peace with Israel. 
11. They do not want peace with Israel, they want the destruction of Israel. 
12. Because they do not care about the Palestinians but realise they are a useful tool in their desire to destroy Israel. 

So please forgive Israel for being wary at this latest publicity stunt from Abbas at the United Nations. Time and again Palestinians have been offered peace and time and again it has been rejected and is usually followed by a war against Israel. The last time there was an Arab power occupying the West Bank, Israel had to defend itself from yet another war of hatred aimed at destroying the state of Israel and the Jewish people. How many times must Israel defend herself from Arab powers who's aim is the destruction of the Jewish State? Any Palestinian state established on Pre-1967 borders leaves open the very possibility of yet another war against Israel launched in very much the same way as the 1967 war - the Arab commitment to 'Pre-1967' borders is nothing to do with a state of Palestine (if they wanted a Palestinian state, they were offered a much larger one which they rejected in 1947) but is a calculated move to threaten Israel. Unilateral moves at the United Nations do not established secure borders for Israel, something history shows us is necessary.

There is no denying the simple fact that there are barriers to peace on both sides that could be removed (and shouldn't be added to). This, however, makes the naive assumption that the Arab side desire peace. If the Arabs wanted peace, they could have had it years ago. Instead, from the very beginning, they chose the path of war and destruction against the Jewish people, a nation whose destruction has been sought by: Ancient Egypt, the Philistines, the Assyrian Empire, the Babylonian Empire, the Persian Empire, the Greek Empire, the Roman Empire, the Byzantine Empire, the Crusaders, the Spanish Empire, Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. 

Not one of these civilisations, nations or empires still exist. The Jewish People remain. 

Find me a dead Israeli: There maybe a story here.

Violence in the Middle East is not a new thing. Rockets being fired into Israel and Israeli responses are events that, for the citizens of Gaza and Israel, have become quite commonplace. The media response is, too, nothing new. Nor is the justification for the media response (or lack of it). The most common is, "But the rockets don't kill anyone". This is then either extended to suggest it is 'not newsworthy' or, even more extreme, "Israel shouldn't make a fuss about it". How anyone can be so irreverent to rocket fire, I do not know, but I shall attempt to debunk both of these views here. 

The argument can be formulated as follows:

1                    1. The rockets, in the main, do not kill anyone

2                    2. That which is aimed to kill but doesn’t kill is not:

                                   a.     Newsworthy

                                    or

                                   b.     Something that warrants a reaction/condemnation

3                    3. Therefore rockets (which aim to kill), in the main, are not:

                                   a.     Newsworthy

                                    or

                                   b.     Something that warrants any reaction/condemnation

If 1 and 2 are true it follows that 3 is also true. Ignoring the obvious complication that rockets can and do kill people for now, premise 2 is clearly false. In other words it is not the case that things which aim to kill but fail are neither newsworthy nor something that warrants a reaction for 6 reasons:

1. The rockets still have a profound effect. In England, students look forward to "snow days" as a day off school. In the southern parts of Israel, students have rocket days where it is deemed school cannot be opened, not because they may slip and fall or because the coach service cannot run as per snow days, but because it is deemed that the threat of a rocket attack means students are in the position where they may go to school but not return. Thus, a day in rocket shelters is the solution. Whatever way you look at the situation - whether you argue Israel is an occupying power and the rockets are only in retaliation to IAF strikes on the Gaza strip or not, the fact rocket fire targets schools and prevents children from attending school is not only newsworthy, something that warrants a reaction from Israel but also just plain wrong. To note an example, when schools are shut in England due to snow, that is deemed newsworthy (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-16903487 - just one example of this being reported). When schools are shut due to rocket fire, because the rocket fire hasn't resulted in dead Israelis, it is not newsworthy. If anything, it should be the other way round. 

2. The rockets may not (always) kill, but they inflict damage and do cause injuries. Simply put, since when did 'deaths' become the criteria for what warrants a reaction or is newsworthy. Multiple Israelis are injured in rocket fire - the attitude that no deaths=not newsworthy/not worthy of a reaction can be crudely put as, "If there are no dead Israelis, I do not care enough to report it and/or Israel has no right to react". It makes me worry for some people that I genuinely have to explain why 'deaths' as the criteria upon which something becomes newsworthy or deserving of a reaction, is simply absurd. The unsuccessful nature of the rockets doesn't render them not bad nor does it mean that indiscriminate rocket fire is neither newsworthy nor deserving of a reaction. 

3. Linking both of the above points, the rockets aim and have the potential to kill. They are fired at children forcing them to miss school and spend the day in a rocket shelter. Hamas are not on some mission to disrupt the schooling of Israeli children. They wish to kill Israeli school children. They are fired into villages and cause damage to buildings and injuries to civilians. Hamas is not on some mission to keep Israeli builders and doctors in work. They wish to destroy villages and kill civilians. Again, when something is aimed to kill and has the potential to kill, only in the case of Israel is the failure to kill deemed a reason not to report about the rockets and/or to condemn any reaction by Israel to the rockets. Firstly, foiled terror plots haven't killed anyone yet they are still deemed newsworthy (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/times_square_car_smoke_scare_TyBE8K6vF3PzScpS9xG0XP) - as they, of course, are. The fact the terror plot failed doesn't then render it irrelevant to news organisations. (Unless, Israel is on the receiving end). Indeed, in the case of the Times Square scare, it was deemed newsworthy even though nothing even exploded, unlike rocket fire which, in itself is successful, even if it fails to kill (many). Secondly, the fact that the rockets don't kill (many) doesn't mean Israel has no right to attempt to prevent the rocket fire. What government's defence of her citizens is only justifiable if a citizen has died? That the rockets can (and does) kill civilians is enough to warrant a reaction from Israel to prevent the rocket fire. 

4. The rockets are a barrier to peace. If we work from the assumption that a Palestinian state will compromise of the Gaza Strip and, as of yet, an undetermined amount of the land known commonly as the West Bank, then a future Palestinian state will include the land where the rocket fire emanates from and the people that fire the rockets. In other words, the actions of the ruling party from an area of land that is generally assumed to form part of any future Palestinian State is indiscriminately firing (albeit useless) rockets into Israel, actions which by definition are not peaceful. Not only should this make the situation newsworthy - whether peace is attainable in the Middle East is surely newsworthy and thus actions which, without doubt a a barrier to peace must also be newsworthy, but it means that a response from Israel is more than justified. Again, whether or not you also deem the Israeli response as a barrier to peace and not justifiable in the face of Hamas' regime of terror is besides the point - the rockets into Israel are a barrier to peace, regardless of whether or not there exist other barriers to peace.

5. Israel has spent millions on mechanisms to prevent the rockets from being deadly - iron dome defence system, bomb shelters etc etc. It is not the rockets themselves that mean Israeli deaths are few and far between but Israeli efforts to ensure this is the case. Why, therefore, should Hamas essentially get the credit for the Israeli efforts? By getting the credit, I mean not having the rocket attacks condemned or covered as extensively as, especially 100+ rocket bursts, should be. 

6. The rockets do kill people. The amount is irrelevant. (OK, granted, this is more to disprove premise one, rather than two, but the point is valid nonetheless) 

If premise 2 is false, then not only should the world's media report the rocket fire more extensively than it does, rather than taking the view that Israelis are not dying therefore it is not important but more crucially, Israel absolutely has a right to respond to rocket fire. You can argue to the ends of the Earth about the force it should use, the force it does use but the fundamental point remains that Israel, no matter how useless Hamas are, has a right to defend her citizens and put an end to rocket fire. That Hamas care not for the citizens of Gaza not only putting there lives in danger through attacking Israel but also using them as active human shields to further endanger them, is not Israel's problem. 

It is perhaps ironic that the one thing preventing Hamas from obtaining weapons which would, according to the proponents of the above argument, mean that attacks against Israel were newsworthy/deserving of a reaction is the blockade of Gaza which they all oppose. Surely preventing weapons of a more deadly nature entering Gaza is in the interests of the proponents of the above argument. They need a reason not to report on Hamas' attacks. If Hamas starting killing more Israelis, that already absurd reason would float away. 

Oh So Fresh

Going to university was a big move for me (as, indeed, it is for most). Suddenly tasks that 'mummy' would usually have done, became my responsibility overnight. From shopping and becoming bargain hunting students (mainly looking for cheap booze) to doing your own laundry (something I have not attempted yet - considering I burnt myself within 5 seconds of switching on the iron at home and I spent a good 10 minutes sat in front of my washing machine completely ignorant of what settings to use to make it work that's probably a wise move), you begin to look after yourself. Or at least attempt to.

Despite arriving with virtually everything under the sun, I somehow forgot to bring any food other than some cornflakes leading to genuine concerns from my flatmates as to my eating habits in the first few days. Luckily a female flatmate took pity on me cooking me a stir-fry not once, but twice. So much for looking after yourself, I was still being looked after by a (albeit different) woman! Indeed,  before I'd even bought any food, our kitchen had been used by others not once but twice. The first was a perfectly innocent couple of guys from downstairs who only wanted to cook a lasagne because their oven wasn't working but were subjected to brilliant discussion centring on 10ft whale penis. We couldn't help but feel sorry for them as they nervously waited for their lasagne to cook and clearly felt quite uncomfortable in the process. The second occasion, however, was much weirder:

I was just arriving back from something when I was greeted by "Come here Raphael. Come and have a look at this". I figured I'd made a mess with my cornflakes or something as I was dragged to the kitchen. Upon entering, however, I discovered that a group of Chinese people had set up base in our kitchen, were using 3/4 of our stoves and had even brought their own rice steamer with them. None of them were from our kitchen and only one was even from our block. Looking back I shouldn't have compared it to Hitler's search for living space in the east but nonetheless my flatmates had all been driven out of our kitchen by hysterics and a complete ignorance over what to do about 7 random Chinese people just cooking in our kitchen for no apparent reason other than they felt like it. They then all sat down and started eating in our kitchen. I took the opportunity to join in and eat - it wasn't bad. All was forgiven.

Taking a couple of days to settle in; a visit from Mum and Dad the week after moving out and finally purchasing something to eat/drink other than cornflakes or tea, I settled down to began student life...

...Pretty much the same way I ended school life. I remain the annoying one seemingly not doing any work or, indeed, having any work to do and as I sit here looking at my comparatively empty timetable (to a science subject for example), I can't help but think I made the right decision picking an Arts Subject like PPE; I still wear what some would label ludicrous clothing, going out two nights in my PJs (and only on one of those did I get a free drink); I still offer everyone and anyone a random hug even if I do claim that most enjoy it and, indeed, a good hug is always beneficial; I've still been getting into "discussions" about the Israel-Palestine conflict and I'm still blogging!

Getting to know people is always a bit daunting and despite initial anti-socialness as I scampered off to Old Trafford, I quite quickly felt at home and indeed as if I had been lucky with my flatmates. We quickly labelled ourselves as a dysfunctional family and haven't really looked back. We are an odd but, I would say, wonderful mix.

Despite lectures starting 2 days into Freshers Week (actually two weeks here at Warwick), my determination to party remained strong - "Please drag me to stuff," I believe were my exact words. My reasoning? I bought a freshers passport and didn't want it to be a waste of money - I had expected this would receive the amazingly witty response "YOU JEW" forgetting I was no longer at Habs and casual racism might not be as acceptable. Whilst I have attended most Freshers Events, I still fail to see the attraction and often leave early for a game of pool gaining me a reputation as Arthur Vick's resident party animal (or not). Something about the incessant shoving, immense crowding, shit but loud music, the one guy who decides the middle of the dance floor is absolutely the right place to break wind and drunk people that doesn't endear me to them - of course, I will still attend the freshers events remaining. And moan about them.

Drinking is big part of Freshers week especially and whilst even I did cross the line from sober to tipsy on a few occasions, and even went a bit further than that, I discovered a wonderful pleasure in observing drunk people. I felt a bit like David Attenborough as I ate my yogurt perfectly sober and looked on, sometimes in shock, sometimes in amusement, at my block mates going about their business having just played Ring of Fire.  Then it got a bit interesting.

For a moment I thought I was back at HABS as I suddenly heard, "You can't be racist if you have slept with a black guy". I'm sure there was a context to this that I missed as I finished of my yogurt but this was a line of argument that was actively pursued and, indeed, repeated. It culminated with the question, which remained unanswered, "What about if a black man rapes you? Because technically you've still slept with him so can you not be a racist?". It was something off a HABS playground and I did have a little snigger to myself as I realised we're this absurdly and casually racist completely sober! There was worse but I'm not sure I should reveal all here. I will admit to enjoying the drunken conversation even if I did get caught out tweeting about that comment.

Having spent a week and a half at university, I can certainly say I've enjoyed it. I've met some wonderful new people, had a lot of fun at freshers, got a free condom and actually done a little bit of work. Just a little bit mind. It's been a brilliant experience so far and as long as I have food in the kitchen or people who take enough pity on me to cook me something I am sure I will do just fine!

Just A Minute

 40 years ago, between 5th September and 6th September, at the Olympic Games in Munich, 11 athletes were abducted and eventually murdered by terrorists. Two nationalities may have been left out from that sentence but really, they are not important. 40 years on, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) continue to refuse  to hold a one minutes silence for these murdered Olympians who went to compete at games, like the athletes and coaches of every other nation, in peace and with nothing but sporting achievement on their minds but, unlike every other athlete, they returned in coffins murdered by terrorists who wanted nothing less than to see them dead. The day after the tragedy occurred, there was a memorial service held in Munich for the murdered athletes and coaches during which the Olympic Flag and those of attending countries were lowered to half mast. All attending countries excepting 10 nations who refused to have their flags lowered to respect 11 dead athletes. 

40 years on it is similar nations who, it seem, will ensure that 11 athletes and coaches will continue to go unremembered at the event at which they were murdered and by the movement which they served and believed in. Repeated calls have come for a permanent memorial, perhaps in the form of a minutes silence, to be held at the Olympic Games to remember 11 athletes and coaches that were murdered but the IOC has declined, saying that to introduce a specific reference to the victims could "alienate other members of the Olympic community". The Olympic Movement is meant to represent unity of all through sport, but her members cannot pull together to remember 11 Olympians murdered at a Games. Perhaps it is time to consider if these nations truly represent the spirit of the Olympic movement. Indeed, London 2012, the 40th anniversary of the tragedy, will be the latest Olympic Games that has no memorial service at the Games to remember 11 athletes and coaches murdered at an Olympic Games and the excuses have not gotten any better in the past 40 years. 

The London Olympics in 2012 will last 24,480 minutes. The Olympic Community still struggle to find just one to remember 11 Israeli athletes and coaches murdered by Palestinian Terrorists.