Mick Hartley

Author: Mick Hartley

  • Why the conflict is irreconcilable

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Full text:

    To @EinatWilf , the best definition of the Israel-Palestine conflict ever came from British former Foreign Minister Ernest Bevin—no friend of the Jews or Zionism—in 1947. In an address to British Parliament, Bevin called the situation in what was then called Palestine ‘irreconcilable,’ saying the land contained two peoples, two nations—Jews and Arabs—each of whom had a central point of principle. For Jews, Bevin said, that top principle was to establish a state. For Arabs, the top principle was to prevent the Jews from establishing a state in any part of the land. As Wilf writes: ‘Notice that he is not saying that the conflict is “the Jews want a State, the Arabs want a State, and they cannot agree on the borders, and it is difficult to figure out how to divide the land.” No. He zeroes in on why the conflict is irreconcilable: the Jews want a State, and the Arabs want the Jews not to have a State. This, by definition, is irreconcilable.’

  • The heirs of Stokely Carmichael

    iew, who among white men he most admired. His answer? Hitler.

  • By far the most lethal industrial or scientific accident that has ever occurred

    nese publication fees. Richard Horton, editor of the Lancet and recipient of a Friendship Award from the Chinese government, went on Chinese television early in the pandemic to say: ‘I think we have a great deal to thank China for, about the way that it handled the outbreak.’

    Occasionally, Westerners fret about the prevalence of scientific fraud, scientific espionage and low safety standards in China, but the money is too good. Yet it always comes with strings attached. As Ian Williams details in his new book, Vampire State, Western academia has been in the habit of ‘stifling debate and parroting Communist Party propaganda in order to ingratiate itself with Chinese partners and sponsors’….

    The outbreak began not just in one of the very few cities doing research on this kind of virus, but also in the city with the biggest SARS-like virus research programme on the planet.

    These kinds of viruses are found a thousand miles away from Wuhan. That’s the distance of London to Rome. We know of only one animal species that regularly travelled that route, carrying lots of viruses. That animal was the scientists themselves. In the 15 years before the pandemic, they collected over 16,000 bat viruses from all over southern China and south-east Asia and brought them a long way north to Wuhan. The nine closest relatives of SARS-CoV-2 at the time of the outbreak were in the freezer of the WIV.

    Coincidences do happen, but when foot and mouth broke out in the UK in 2007, just down the road from the world’s reference lab for foot-and-mouth virus, people did not think it was just a coincidence. They investigated and sure enough it was a lab leak.

    The experiments they did in Wuhan were crazily risky. They took the spike genes of SARS-like viruses they found in bats and inserted them into other virus backbones to make chimeras (viruses that contain genetic material from two or more sources), then infected human cells and humanised mice. In one case, the chimera virus proved to be 10,000 times more infectious in terms of viral load in the mice and significantly more lethal. That’s a gain-of-function experiment of concern….

    What is more, the work in Wuhan was being done in unsafe conditions: at biosafety level two (BSL-2), most of the time. Don’t take my word for it. The head of the lab, Shi Zhengli, said so explicitly. Her collaborator, Peter Daszak of the EcoHealth Alliance, boasted about BSL-2 being ‘highly cost effective’. Ralph Baric of the University of North Carolina called the WIV’s work ‘irresponsible’. Columbia University virologist Ian Lipkin called it ‘unacceptable’. Kristian Andersen called it ‘completely nuts’. Francis Collins, former head of the National Institutes of Health, could not believe it. Jeremy Farrar, formerly of the Wellcome Trust, called it the ‘wild west’.

    Meanwhile scientific denial, and the refusal to hold open debates on the subject – as Ridley documents – continues still, to this day.

  • A potent secular force

    t-size: 11pt”>It's a shame, because the sudden passion for cricket in Afghanistan has been a heart-warming story in many ways, and did seem like a possible entry point for a more liberal less strictly Islamic way of life. Sport and Islamic fundamentalism, after all, don't really go together. Tunku Varadarajan on cricket in Pakistan:

    Cricket is a potent secular force in Pakistan, a secular lesson. It teaches people that man-made rules can be just, and give satisfaction. It teaches an honor unconnected to religiosity and modesty, tribal slights and vengeance. It teaches that exuberance can be constructive, and that individualism and innovation can be blessings (and, equally, that conservatism can often be dangerous). Cricket allows Pakistanis to play against men from other faiths and lands, and to belong with pride to a sporting commonwealth of cricket-playing nations that is a world away from the aridity of the ummah….

    Ah well. Perhaps it can still be that potent secular force in Afghanistan. It's early days…

  • Seeing into souls

    -size: 11pt”>" There are many forms of the human body. I see someone in their soul and as a person. I do not really care whether they have a male body"

  • Astonishingly biased

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    "The British public is paying £4bn/yr for something that belongs alongside the Iran or Pakistan Times’."

  • The role of the activist NGOs

    had participated in the October 7 attacks. Despite this serious breach, a coalition of NGOs, including Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and Oxfam, soon began lobbying intensively for the UK to reinstate its financial support.

    In letters and statements, this coalition simply ignored the systemic abuse that, for years, has crippled humanitarian efforts in Gaza, and did not demand UNRWA introduce necessary radical reforms. They also failed to address the implications of renewing UNRWA’s access to funds and resources in light of the direct involvement in heinous acts of terrorism. Ultimately, the UK resumed its financial support for UNRWA without securing any meaningful changes from the agency, further normalising terror, anti-Israel sentiment, and antisemitism in the public sphere.

    Over the nine weeks that followed, intense NGO lobbying pressured the incoming UK government to reconsider this position. Influential groups like Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, GLAN and Al-Haq pushed an outrageous narrative, claiming that asking the ICC to respect binding treaties was somehow inconsistent with “justice.”

    On July 26, the government changed, and with that so did the UK’s stance on Israel. The newly elected government, heavily pressured by anti-Israel advocacy NGOs acting under the flag of international law, dropped opposition to the ICC arrest warrants. This leaves Israeli leaders open for prosecution for defending their nation against heinous acts of terrorism.

    These policy decisions not only undermine Israel’s right to defend itself but also weaken the broader British commitment to countering the Iranian threat. Any positive steps – such as levying sanctions on Iran and providing defensive military support to Israel during Iran’s direct attack in April and ongoing threats – are compromised by limiting arms exports and joining in the ICC’s attack. These actions strengthen Iran-aligned groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, and embolden the very forces the UK seeks to counter.

    For more on UNRWA and its crucial role in perpetuating Palestinian victimhood, and sustaining the belief that the only future for Palestinians lies in the destruction iof Israel, see here, and here.

    And this is always worth revisiting:

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  • The grown-ups are back in the room

    significant inroads into institutions across education, health, charities and corporations over the past few decades, and a triumphant week for those who campaign against its doctrine. “It feels like the grown-ups are back in the room,” says Maya Forstater, CEO of human rights charity Sex Matters.

    It's too soon for complacency, though. 

    With Streeting’s firm line on Cass and puberty blockers, the battleground upon which trans-rights groups can prosecute their war is shrinking. This may be contributing to the increasing vehemence of activists, who stress the heightened risks of suicide to trans children. Maugham claimed that the upheld puberty-blocker ban would “kill trans children. My feelings about Wes Streeting are unprintable.” Susie Green, former chief executive of Mermaids, says Streeting has “blood on his hands… How dare Wes Streeting put so many trans kids at risk by continuing this murderous ban.”

    This type of language and its basic assertion were branded “unfounded and dangerous” earlier this year in a government review conducted by Prof Louis Appleby, chair of the national suicide prevention strategy advisory group.

    “There’s been 30 years of institutional capture that doesn’t just go away with the Cass Review,” says Forstater. “There have been lots of turning points, but it’s more like pulling up bindweeds. You just have to keep at it as it keeps growing back.” As Stonewall says, the gradual retreat is strategic. There has been no Damascene conversion – if anything the events of this week suggest militancy is likely to increase as their opportunities to influence diminish.

  • No Labour plans to update the Equality Act

    -act/”>placating the trans lobby:

    The Government will not carry forward plans to rewrite the Equality Act 2010 that were aimed at protecting single-sex spaces, the Minister for Women and Equalities has confirmed.

    Anneliese Dodds said there were no plans to update the existing legislation, which the Conservatives had promised to reform ahead of the general election.

    The Tories planned to rewrite the act in order to make it clear that “sex” in the legislation means “biological sex” instead of the gender with which a person identifies.

    This would have allowed public bodies to stop transgender women entering women’s lavatories or changing rooms, as well as preventing them joining all-female sports teams.

    A step too far for Labour, apparently.

    In a written question in Parliament, John Glen, the shadow paymaster general, asked whether the Government intended to amend the legal definition of what a woman is.

    Ms Dodds replied: “We are proud of the Equality Act and the rights and protections it affords women. The Government does not plan to amend legal definitions in the act.”

    Mims Davies, the shadow minister for women and equalities, warned Ms Dodds that Sir Keir Starmer’s refusal to rewrite the act could create further “loopholes” for abusers.

    “Labour simply cares more about appeasing woke ideologues than delivering on women’s safety,” she said.

    “We introduced this change to provide much-needed clarity in the law to stop potential abusers exposing loopholes and acting in stopping the diluting of women’s safety.

    “Only by legally enshrining the importance of single-sex spaces can this Labour Government give biological women the clarity, dignity, privacy and safety we need.”

    The Equality Act was formulated at at time before gender became the new cause celebre so the wording is ambiguous on the difference between sex and gender identity, which wasn't a thing then (and isn't a thing now, either, but here we are), allowing for the kind of manipulation that lets men get into women-only spaces, women's sport, women's jails, rape centres, and so on. Clarification was required – yes, the Tories should have got round it a lot sooner – but the current ambiguity suits the gender activists. It seems to suit our new Labour government too.

  • Unloading ore

    Ca. 1905. "Freighter Manda unloading ore, Cleveland, Ohio."

    image from www.shorpy.com
    [Photo: Shorpy/Detroit Publishing Company]

Powered by