It’s Liz Ely and me.

It features:

Intro

(Nick) Griffo

A little bit of swearing and bonus tracks and a whole lot of apologising.

Also we don’t know what we’re doing with the microphone.

Read more about it here:
http://www.thebletherreport.com/?p=15

Download just the MP3:
CLICK HERE!

And here is the link to our podcast RSS feed (not yet aproved for iTunes):
http://feeds.feedburner.com/TheBletherReport

There is a twitter feed too:
http://twitter.com/BletherReport

And here’s the little bio I wrote for it:

We are @twirlingmynci and @GoHod podcasting left-wing politics, feminism, anti-fascism, ad-libbed satire, comedy and indiepop. With (some) swearing.

Reprinted with permission:

On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 SPSC supporter wrote:
It was not a useless gesture to boycott apartheid South Africa in the Seventies and Eighties, and anyone who is not boycotting Israel (both economically and culturally ) is supporting Ethnic Cleansing!

Personally I would welcome a boycott by American tourist. Tourism means underpaid seasonal work with split shifts with the profits going to foriegn owned hotel chains, or to tartan tat shop owners who campaign against congestion charging! I am considering organising a protest at the U.S. consolate to support a boycott of american tourist and businessmen, especially Donald Trump!
Would people be interested in attending?

I have been told that there are boycott campaigns against American goods in many Arab countries because of their millitary agression and because of their support for Israel’s Ethnic Cleansing. I would support a boycott of U.S.goods, and I would NOT describe the U.S.A as a democracy.

If I believed al Megrahi to be guilty, I would not have supported his release, but he is obviously innocent or Kenny MacKaskil would noy have told him to drop his appeal before he could be released! Kenny Mackaskil has shamed Scotland by forcing al Megrahi to drop his Appeal!

[Name Redacted]

— On Tue, 25/8/09, Gordon Hodgson  wrote:

I agree. Boycotting democratic states is offensive, and boycotting any states verges on useless gesture politics.

Gordon

>
> On 25 Aug 2009, at 15:49, [name redacted] wrote:
>
> > http://www.boycottscotland.com/
> >
> > I found this link, and find the whole thing offensive.
> >
> > If we take this logic to the very extreme; maybe Scotland and Britain,
> > should boycott America, for loss of life during a pointless ongoing
> > war?.
> >
> > Should we have boycotted America, for funding the IRA?
> >
> >
> > American politicians, have a very short memory and a two-faced view of
> > the world, while Scotland and the rest of Britain, are expected to
> > jump
> > to the beat of American “corporate” politics.
> >
> > Would the US, take any notice of Scottish, or Westminster opinions; I
> > very much doubt they would.
> >
> > Scotland must be respected, just like any other Government, and must
> > not
> > be dictated to, by any other power.

My primary concern is that the world becomes a more Just, Equitable and Sustainable place. The best way to do this, I feel, is through the political process, and in particular through the work of Green parties.

My concern in politics is that we achieve what we set out to do, whether that be short term goals like contesting elections, mid term goals like drawing up election strategy, or long-term goals like drawing up and implementing policy. We should try not to get bogged down in internal disputes and take level-headed, fair and non-partisan approaches to any problems we meet. Also, we should avoid pissing people off (unneccesarily).

Diplomacy to me, is acting to solve disputes, with restraint, and without flying off the handle. Often times, the political disputes I’ve seen have tended to be on arcane internal matters (because the policy matters are less contentious when we generally share a common philosophical basis). A lot of energy, therefore, often goes into disputes, instead of into more constructive pursuits like, say, winning elections. Hence, I aspire to be Green and Diplomatic (with the ‘(a)’ signifying that I don’t want to be the only one, and the ‘?’ signifying, that it’s really up to other people to make that judgement).

I will remain the National Returning Officer of the Scottish Green Party, which like any group of politics geeks activists and representatives can have its tensions, but has been a generally more relaxing and more rewarding time. I hope I can continue to offer assistance in the future to the GPEW, perhaps as Deputy ERO in at least a year’s time, and I hope that the circumstances of this year’s elections, and my resignation, will give pause for thought, and motivation to debate and ultimately implement the most positive and enabling changes to our internal structure and culture.

I love internal politics, and I’m aware that all the stresses that people in internal politics suffer mean precisely naff all to the general voting public, but it can drain activists, turn people cynical and cause factionalism that has knock-on effects to our external operations.

Our most important targets for activist-energy must remain the Climate Crisis (and the need for speedy implementation of Carbon-Economics/Contraction and Convergence) and attacking the Social Inequity that harms people on the lowest incomes leading to an increasing poverty gap and creating perfect conditions for the far-right to gain supporters.

I will come back… don’t worry.

Regards,
Gordon

Mira Vogel wrote an excellent open letter, explaining the position of anti-boycotters, specifically with regards to a suggested cultural boycott of Israel and moves to have a performance by the Jerusalem Quartet cancelled. It’s through and covered with citations, and well worth a read, right away.

Here are some choice excerpts:

Some Israeli political groups and human rights and peace-making NGOs draw a distinction between boycotting the occupation on the one hand, which they view as appropriate, and boycotting Israel in its entirety on the other hand, which they recognise as eliminationist. PACBI and other groups pursue the latter – the entire social, cultural and economic exclusion of Israel. PACBI seeks, indiscriminately, to break links between medical institutions and cultural ones alike. Nothing less than the total pariahdom of Israel will suffice. PACBI is attempting to end Israel’s existence.

Unlike the boycott of South Africa, to which the boycott of Israel is frequently compared, hardly any Israelis call for a boycott. Those who oppose boycott include the Israeli socialist party Hadash and peace-making NGOs such as Gisha (legal centre for freedom of movement), the Abraham Fund for coexistence, and Peace Now (for an end to the occupation). The boycott is widely seen by peace-makers on the ground as counterproductive to peace. It is inarticulate, it causes more of the difference and division which are exascerbating the conflict, and it abandons Israeli peace activists.

Israel is unlike South Africa in a crucial way: its neighbours have only recently formally accepted its existence, this acceptance cannot be taken for granted, and there are enduring armed movements which hope to eliminate Israel. In South Africa anti-apartheid activists sought majority rule. In Israel there is majority rule. Israel is the world’s sole Jewish state, which came into existence after the attempted genocide of the world’s Jews. Hamas, Hesbollah and other factions continually preach hatred of Jews, and call this resistance to Israel. Beyond Israel antisemitism is a regional norm.

A total boycott of Israel – the campaign for boycott, divestment and sanctions of which PACBI’s cultural boycott is part – assists Hamas and other eliminationists by posing an obstacle to peace-making. In short, Israel is not and never has been the sole aggressor in this conflict, nor does it act capriciously or sadistically, as you might think if you were to read only PACBI’s, or only the Palestine Solidarity Campaign’s, narrative of the conflict. The settlers must leave the occupied land, reparations must be made to refugees, occupation must end, resources must be equitably distributed, infrastructure must not be used to control and subdue, and Israel’s neighbours must permit Israel to live in peace. In Israel and the occupied territories violence feeds on violence, extremism on extremism. The reason the conflict is intractable is because the causes endure, not because Israel is a brutal state.

I could think of many more reasons not to cancel the Jerusalem Quartet. Some of them would be to do with cultural exchange and some of them would be to do with art.  None of them would be to do with discrediting solidarity with Palestinians under occupation. Israel is engaged in a violent occupation and ongoing settlement of Palestinian lands beyond its own borders. Israel has demonstrated it is willing to turn large parts of Gaza to rubble and make security for ordinary Gazans meaningless in the name of protecting its own security. But the cultural boycott of Israel will not help end the occupation nor the violence – if anything it will exacerbate the division. Additionally I think (unlike boycotters) that the best way for international community to end the occupation is to learn about the conflict, represent it accurately, and demand and take action which addresses the causes of the conflict. The best way for artistic bodies in Britain to reach out to Palestinians living under occupation is to invite Palestinian artists and performers to this country and pursue their travel permits with the Israeli authorities.

Read the whole letter (with links) here:

http://engageonline.wordpress.com/2009/08/13/in-support-of-the-jerusalem-quartet-performance/

It’s odd how people fail to understand ideas of a nation of people, and the States that those nations form. Most States are formed as quirks of geography. The citizens are connected to that State through their connection to that State’s soil. In my case, I was allowed to live in the UK, because my father’s grandfather was from Yorkshire. Arbitrary, no?

In general, and aspirationally I am in favour of global equality and open borders, on the basis that in general (again), people like to live where they have grown up, and in a place they have a connection to, and should not be forced out of those places through economic necessity. Equally, if you are in the minority, like me, of people who were born in one country, grew up in another, and found you had more in common with your new home than your old one, you should be allowed to remain there.

However it is the presently the case, in terms of international law that we recognise States’ rights to control of their borders. Many of us are against military invasion/occupation of States that were constructed arbitrarily, because we feel we should accept their territorial sovereignty (perhaps spuriously). So we have States discriminating on who is allowed to live there within their borders, based on people’s connection to geography, or through recent heredity. But the nation of the British, is not the same as the Jewish nation who have been diasporic and and are connected primarily through ethnicity and religion. And this is not at all trying to rationalise use of force, by Israel (or Palestine), but we are engaging in hypocrisy if we call Israel’s border policies racist, but we don’t call any other State’s policies xenophobic…

The situation of having two nations of people with a claim to the same land is far from ideal. But it is a reality. There is no more chance of every Jew being kicked out of Israel than there is of every Palestinian being kicked out Palestine (or the indigenous people of Canada rising up and sending white Europeans back where they came from).

So, striving towards peace, what is served by calling Israel illegal, deciding that one set of ethnic histories is less valid than another, or demanding that people in Israel somehow disconnect themselves from their subjective experiences, emigrate and end all conflict by themselves? Why do we not hold ourselves to the same standards of objectivity?

What is the end goal of BDS, and how can it be achieved diplomatically rather than antagonistically?

What has BDS done to save one Palestinian’s life?

Was boycott against the US acceptable during the invasion of Iraq? Should we have been buying British produce?

How is the character of a State summed up by the government that a minority of its people elect?

What’s the difference between saying “I’m not racist, but…” and “did you know some Jews are anti-zionist…?”

Why have I got so many question, and so few answers…?

I will try very hard not to talk about expenses or the credit crunch as they are bloody boring. I may stick to internal politics and the BNP (nice and salacious) and my more recent interest in combating institutionalised anti-semitism (from my longtime-ex-Christian atheist perspective, if that matters) but, yeah, we’ll see how that goes. Anyway I am trying to make a once-a-week commitment, and Thursdays seem as good a day as any (no plagiarism intended, Mr Thursday Briefing).

In the mean time (well, until September anyway), I will be writing my Masters’ dissertation on Civic and Ethnic Nationalism in the National Library of Scotland (with no free WiFi to distract me).

Also, since I think it’s good to put up posts with pictures, here’s one to start:

From the National Museum of Scotland‘s room on emigration from Scotland: