The Chant of the Barbie Dolls

The (American) comedian Greg Proops once said "They say Americans don't 'get' irony - that's because we're too busy manufacturing it". I think it might be appropriate, now that the Saville Inquiry has been published, to replace "Americans" with "politicians", or perhaps even "the British Establishment" in that joke. At least I like to think of it as a joke, otherwise I'm sure my head would just explode in a fit of apoplexy that would be visible from the other side of the galaxy.

In the first instance, who can't feel relieved at the palpable sense of justice the families of the victims of the Paras have at last achieved. Max Hastings, being interviewed by James Naughtie on the Today program on 14-Jun said that he had refused to give evidence to the Saville Inquiry on the grounds that, even though he was present in Derry on the day of the massacre, interviewing members of the Parachute regiment, as it happens, it was so long ago and his memory so vague, he didn't think he could contribute. And that's why, he followed on, there should be no further actions whatever the results of the inquiry - it was so long ago all the testimony must be unreliable. Well he would say his memories are vague wouldn't he? He didn't see loved ones gunned down for nothing other than exercising their right to assembly, or attempting to go to the aid of someone gunned down. I've no doubt that the victims and relatives of those gunned down that day, and many of those who were there, have relived that experience every day of their lives since then, indeed some have suffered physically, never mind emotionally, every day of their lives since receiving their injuries. Had Hastings suffered the same fate, I'm sure his memories of the day would be vivid. Naughtie, in true BBC Radio 4 'Today' style, either allowed this horrifically uncomprehending comment to slide, or is of such a similar world view that he saw nothing wrong with it.


Of course the BBC rolled into false bias overtime. I saw 3 former members of the armed forces, in the interests of balance, don't you know what what, in one report all saying the same thing - and I'm paraphrasing - "you have to remember the context of the time in which this incident took place". I saw a former senior commander of the Paras make that his entire statement to the press, essentially. Indeed it's true - the context at the time was a peaceful civil rights march during which completely innocent civilians were massacred. Most of these journalists probably genuinely don't see anything wrong with their reportage. In a recent medialens (www.medialens.org) alert, BBC journalist Jonathan Marcus was challenged about why he had presented the deaths of civilians in international waters as a "public relations disaster" for Israel - an archetypal blandification of the events which implicitly makes it seem like a minor faux pas in international etiquette: someone had turned their back on the queen, or forgot to invite the ambassador's wife to a garden party. He seemed genuinely, not so much aghast, more quizzical and puzzled as to how anyone could think this was an appalling way to present the facts. In his response "I am the Diplomatic Correspondent here and my task was to look at the diplomatic/political ramifications of this incident" it's very clear - he just has no comprehension of the idea that "turnabout is fair play". If, when you substitute "Hamas" for "Israel" in the context of the report, you wouldn't ever entertain the thought of submitting the copy, then don't do it! That would be "fair and balanced". It's not so much that he's puzzled by this, it's just beyond his comprehension. Journalists like this remind me of the people of the planet Krikkit in the Douglas Adams novel, 'Life the Universe and Everything, who just had no concept of "up". When they heard a noise coming from the sky they looked everywhere - just not in the one place it was coming from - "up".

And so to David Cameron's statement to the House of Commons: "unjustified and unjustifiable" - ok. Thanks for that Dave. But he went even further - the government, he said, is ultimately responsible for the actions of the armed forces, and went on to apologise for Bloody Sunday. Well that's a pretty significant step, isn't it? Except that, on the basis of the best (the only) scientific estimates we have, the US lead, UK backed, illegal, unwarranted invasion of Iraq cost the lives of in excess of 1 million people (not 14), and displaced many millions more. No one wants to put "measures" on human suffering, but one can only assume that if Cameron actually meant what he said about government being responsible for the actions of armed forces, the entirety of the previous Labour government would right now be on trial. Not to mention that the most strenuous diplomatic and economic sanctions and embargoes would be placed on the state of Israel, on the basis that that government (who are, remember, directly responsible for the actions of it's armed forces, which includes security forces) are responsible for forging British passports for use in a murder, and the murder of 9 civilians on the high seas and the wounding of many more. This isn't even to get into the most recent massacre in Gaza, previous Lebanon wars, Sabra and Chatila, Qana and so on. And if we start to take account of, for example, Wiki-leaks evidence of murder in Iraq, then we can count the Bush Administration in as well. The list goes ever on it seems.

One wonders, on a separate point, what exactly would Israel have to do in order to incur any genuinely strenuous diplomatic and economic, or even rhetorical opprobrium from the US, UK, and their propaganda arm, the "lamestream" media, akin to that regularly dished out to the 'holocaust denying', 'Marxist firebrand', 'loony tunes' of Iran, Venezuela and North Korea respectively*? Murder US citizens? Nope, done that at least twice already. Massacre and/or facilitate the massacre of civilians - nope, done that. Illegally invade another country - nope. Commit war crimes during Gaza "incursions" - nope. Forge British passports and use them to murder someone in a third country - nope. Piracy and murder on the high seas - nope. What exactly would Israel have to do in order for the US to start to think about threatening to cut off at least some of it's military aid, or the UK to impose sanctions? I mean, how ridiculous would it have to get before it got unacceptable? Maybe if the IDF started invading the beaches of Galveston, slashing and burning on their way, we might see headlines like: "What a tragedy this is!", "What a PR disaster those dead Texans are for Israel", or "Israel has every right to defend itself from the threat posed by aggressive gun wielding Texans".

If you wonder why it is that Israel seems to act in such flagrant violation of what is perceived as the norm for international relations, consider this: the US State Department has what can be loosely termed a "mad man" strategy - it is an acceptable policy for the US to be unpredictable and in some cases vindictive, say state planners, as a matter of foreign policy, in order that other nations fear psychopathic reprisal for any perceived slights. This is the way to conduct yourself internationally, they "reason", to get what you want. The blatant nature of Israel's actions, and the seething underlying threat of it's nuclear weapons ("don't put me in the red man, I'll use 'em") seems to indicate they've taken a leaf out of the US state departments operating manual. I mean really, do you think it's beyond the wit of Mossad to assassinate someone in Dubai and NOT get caught on CCTV or using forged passports? The message is clear - "We can upset, and abuse the trust of our closes allies with impunity, AND kill whoever we want, wherever we want in the world, and we get to keep our nukes without so much as a peep from anyone, and no repercussions. Sorry, what were you saying about not being able to make my birthday party?".

Of course ultimately, what the Saville Inquiry tells you is that if you want to get an apology from the British Establishment for state violence or terror, even where everyone knows where responsibility lies and has done for years, the incident had better have happened in front of the entire world, in a media glare, and you'd better have 13 years and 200 million pounds at your disposal, because that's what it takes. Chagossian Islanders, and the rest of the world, take note.

*It's interesting that despite the best effort of the media and UK/UK axis to hype up the "external" threat that these countries supposedly pose (Iran and it's nuclear program, Venezuela and it's alleged incursions into Columbia, and North Korea and it's non-existent Belgrano-moment), nothing has managed to stick. Pretty much, even if these are "tyrannical dictatorships", which Venezuela certainly isn't, they haven't done anything outside their borders to upset anyone in particular.