Wank-a-thon

Believe it or not, this is not a reference to political self-indulgence of our so-called world leaders - although it might well be. Rather, London yesterday was host to a public "masturbation" event designed to raise money and promote the breakdown of sexual tabboos. The red faces of even the more normally laid-back TV reporters forced to cover the event were a sight to behold - so what I first considered the strange folly of a couple of Amerikan "sexologists" may actually be serving a needed purpose after all.

Those of you who check my calender on left may have assumed yesterday was a blissful sojourn at the Fruitstock Festival. Sadly not. Although I do intend to pop over there later today, yesterday required adding my presence to the large anti-war demonstration here in London. A long and winding stream of people coursed from Hyde Park down to Parliament Square and some of the rear guard didn't arrive at the destination until the speeches were virtually over. My photos will be up later.

Parliament Square is normally out-of-bounds for demonstrations these days, but with Parliament on holiday this one was tolerated. Speakers included most of our "usual suspects" but a few surprises like Bianca Jagger and assorted diplomats. Sadly, unlike the Iraq War protests and probably due to the overall shaky ground on which Blair's government is attempting to balance, the stage was also, I felt, hi-jacked by a number of political opportunists who seemed less-than-convincing on the conviction front whilst somewhat overkeen and egotistical on the rabble-rousing front. Still, the event more than served its purpose despite the fact that Blair, still in residence nearby, probably had his ear-plugs on.

Today is the anniversary of the 1945 atom bomb drop on Hiroshima.In today's mail, a pertinent note from Richard Neville points out some facts which remain largely unknown...

In the Second World War, three months after the defeat of the German army in May 1945, Europe was at peace and Japan was on the verge of surrender. At this time, on August 6, US President Harry Truman announced that an "American airplane dropped one bomb on Hiroshima, an important Japanese Army base", though he was well aware the target was a city of 400,000 inhabitants. Despite Truman's pledge that the US wanted to "avoid, as much as possible, the killing of civilians", the world's first Atomic bomb was detonated without warning 600 meters above the Shima hospital in the center of the city during morning rush hour. Between a quarter and a half of its people were instantly incinerated, and over a thousand died slow agonising deaths. However, General Grove assured Congress that nuclear radiation caused "no undue suffering – in fact, they say it is a very pleasant way to die". (On the eve of the Baghdad invasion George W Bush assured the world that Iraqi civilians would be spared "in every way we can"). Three days after bombing Hiroshima, the US dropped a nuclear bomb over the Roman Catholic cathedral in Nagasaki, with incredible effect, but for no apparent reason. The official July 1946 report on the Pacific air war by the US Strategic Bombing Survey concluded: "Japan would have surrendered even if Atomic bombs had not been dropped".

The day before obliterating Nagasaki, the allies signed the London Agreement, which made crimes against humanity punishable in an international court. Awkwardly, the fourth Hague Convention of 1907, had banned the bombardment of civilians. However, the American war crimes prosecutor, Telford Taylor, decided that since air bombardment had become a "recognised part of modern warfare", such acts had become "customary law". As historian Sven Linqvist points out: rather than ruling that the allies – "especially the allies" – had committed this kind of war crime, "the American prosecutor declared the law had been rendered invalid by the actions of the allies". (See A History of Bombing by Sven Lindqvist, Granta Books, London, 2001). The condoning this criminality left a bloody legacy, now being played out in Beirut "

Returning the events in the Lebanon, I have noted previously that opposition to Israhell is not the same as anti-semitism. Sadly, because Irsahell is not a secular state, its religion is paramount and its current behaviour tends to lead some to criticise Judeaism itself. This author opposes virtually all forms of organised religion, especially those whose doctine relies on mythology and incomprehensible attempts at logic. I'm no fan of Jewish beliefs any more than I am of others. My opposition to Israhell however, is largely with its obsession with Zionism - a movement originating in the mid-1800s to pursue the return of the Jews to Palestine. Post-WW2, Britain relinquished its mandate for the protection of Palestine and handed the (largely dispossessed group of) Jews a clearly defined part of those lands for the formation of Israel. At this time, many "assimilated" Jews around the world expressed concern that Israel should not be created as a "Zionist" state, believing it might prove divisive among the pre-existing communities inhabiting the land and a source of future conflict. How right they were!

In May 1948, Israel was established and granted statehood by the United Nations. Worries about Zionism were largely ignored and the fledgling state left to its own devises. The wars began almost immediately and subsequently Israel, led by those pursuing the Zionist cause, pretty much ignored the advice and desires of the UN - it's creator. Zionism itself changed character and the quest for a return to roots in Palestine became both an "expansionist" policy and a propaganda "call to arms" for the Jewish communities worldwide. Ultimately, it sought and achieved, support for itself amongst Jews and Jewish Enterprises worldwide and actively promoted the emigration of those of the faith back to the "Promised Land" from wherever they were. In the case of Soviet Jews, there was even a campaign of direct agitation towards this end. Simultaneously, the UN slowly became concerned that Zionism was seeking to perpetuate Israeli rule over the Arab lands and was pusuing this with unwarrented agression.

By 1967 this proved to be true, but the UN remained impotent in the face of considerable Zionist sympathy, especially in Amerika and amongst a majority of the leaders of the elite group of governments forming the UN's own Security Council. Nonetheless, almost a decade later, in November 1975, the UN declared Zionism to be "a form of racism and racial domination" and condemned it accordingly with a majority vote at the UN General Assembly. The Security Council remained impotent and all Israeli governments since, both to the left and right of their so-called democratic process, have continued to pursue the Zionist cause.

Any reservations about this policy were effively laid to rest when, following the 911 incident in New York, the new Amerikan dictatorship set a precedent by pursuing a very similar policy of its own. The engineering of the present conflict began at that time.

Later.