[psychomansam]

The world is a fucking mess, let's face it. Does that mean we shouldn't try? That we shouldn't support charities that try? And even if we don't always succeed in huge winds of change, is not the positive impact we have on individuals worth it on its own?

The same problem exists in enacting political change more widely. Should we work from within the system or from without it? Should we act within, be seen as 'valid', grow our organisations and gain more support and power as a result, at the cost of validating the system we're a part of? Or should we act from without and keep our hands clean of the system but be seen as invalid, be smaller and have less power.
I've not heard any particularly good answer to this question. I think the we just have to choose the least worst option, and that depends on a hugely complex set of factors which we can only really guess at.
You ask your questions and leave an implicit answer. I can't accept it without knowing a lot more. And even knowing everything we can, we might still come to the wrong conclusion.

Here's a couple of interesting articles:
http://www.redpepper.org.uk/whats-the-problem-with-the-if-campaign/
http://www.independentaction.net/2013/07/16/state-of-the-voluntary-services-sector-bob-baker-writes/

P.s. Slopes/tom has now puntered me 4 times in 2 months, so I must be saying something right! 

[battery]

I'll read the articles when I'm not quite so knackered, they look interesting. As for an answer, there isn't one! It will very much depend upon the individual charity, the sector they work in, what they are trying to achieve and the clout they have behind them including the individuals they have working for them and the relationships they have have with key figures.

I was just trying to point out that just because something is really hard and impossible for an individual to achieve it doesn't mean we shouldn't give it a go. Oh, and without those people who make themselves feel better by giving a fiver on appeal nights or chucking a bit of spare change in a collection tin organisations a lot of great work wouldn't happen.

[psychomansam]

Oh, and without those people who make themselves feel better by giving a fiver on appeal nights or chucking a bit of spare change in a collection tin organisations a lot of great work wouldn't happen.

I understand what you're saying and it's a valid presentation of one side of the argument and sometimes that side is the right one. But allow me to play devil's advocate.

What if we didn't allow people to merely salve their conscience with a few quid in the proverbial tin? What if charities didn't exist? What if we refused to be pushed into patching up the failures of government and feeling proud about it?

What if, for instance, food banks didn't exist? It's easy to say "aren't they great" and that lots of people wouldn't get food without them and there might be some short-term truth in that. But the wider truth is that public donation and voluntary organisation of food banks is now being used as part of the system of government. If they weren't there, the government would be forced into providing for them some other way, e.g. by providing sufficient benefits and maintaining a system which would be more supportive and wouldn't be reducing people's dignity as much as food banks do. Food banks are clearly enabling the government to break up the welfare state. And there are plenty of corollaries.

[frasermcilwraith]

What if we didn't allow people to merely salve their conscience with a few quid in the proverbial tin? What if charities didn't exist? What if we refused to be pushed into patching up the failures of government and feeling proud about it?

What if, for instance, food banks didn't exist? It's easy to say "aren't they great" and that lots of people wouldn't get food without them and there might be some short-term truth in that. But the wider truth is that public donation and voluntary organisation of food banks is now being used as part of the system of government. If they weren't there, the government would be forced into providing for them some other way, e.g. by providing sufficient benefits and maintaining a system which would be more supportive and wouldn't be reducing people's dignity as much as food banks do. Food banks are clearly enabling the government to break up the welfare state. And there are plenty of corollaries.

 

I don't think either of us are saying that charity is inherently a bad thing in and of itself; just that at the moment, charities fill gaps (usually inadequately despite their best efforts) that a) should be filled by government, or b) could be eliminated completely with serious change to current systems of economics etc. Their role in filling these gaps, as Sam said, enables the government to neglect its duties to its citizens. Essentially, people are led into thinking that they don't have to complain as much about poverty and inequality to government because charities are there to deal with what government neglects to. This sort of thinking is one of many things that allow the world to stay largely the same and the root causes of problems to be ignored by powers who would rather not have to make the sacrifices required to address them.

It's a step further to say that charity is a bad thing because it plays a key role in a bad system, and I don't know if I would go quite so far as to say that, but it's an interesting argument and worth giving some thought to.

[battery]

Playing devil's advocate in return then...

If charities were done away with and the government stepped up, vulnerable people would be at the mercy of the latest political agenda and what was going to be popular with the media therefore what they thought was going to get them elected again, not what was right.

For example, I could see your theory working well for paediatric hospitals but I can also see the field day the sun and the mail would have with taxes being spent on none documented migrant workers or job seekers.

[psychomansam]

You might be right about that, though we can't know for sure. If you're right, we might try to draw one distinction between an area where we suspect harm is being done by charities and and area where we suspect charitable work is, given the best available circumspection, truly producing a net gain for society. And how often does this kind of circumspection occur?

"We really want to try and keep (sic) charities and voluntary groups out of the realms of politics ... the important thing charities should be doing is sticking to their knitting" - Brooks Newmark, Tory MP and Cameron's new charities minister

[mrjonathanr]

Their role in filling these gaps, as Sam said, enables the government to neglect its duties to its citizens. Essentially, people are led into thinking that they don't have to complain as much about poverty and inequality to government because charities are there to deal with what government neglects to.

"TheBig Society " as it was intended. The problem about shoring up iniquity and so perpetuating it is that crisis management is also a moral imperative. There isn't black and white here (in terms of consequences , not intentions) but balanced shades of grey.

[psychomansam]

Their role in filling these gaps, as Sam said, enables the government to neglect its duties to its citizens. Essentially, people are led into thinking that they don't have to complain as much about poverty and inequality to government because charities are there to deal with what government neglects to.

"TheBig Society " as it was intended. [...]. There isn't black and white here (in terms of consequences , not intentions) but balanced shades of grey.

Indeed. The reason it's so worthy of discussion isn't that charity is necessarily wrong or mistaken, but that it isn't necessarily right or wise - and the assumption held by the vast majority of people is that it is just that.

p.s. Moral imperative = much bigger topic which I'm avoiding for the sake of everyone's sanity.

[mrjonathanr]

p.s. Moral imperative = much bigger topic which I'm avoiding for the sake of everyone's sanity.

I'm glad you're not a Kant.

[Sloper]

Israel is an aggressive, oppressive, expansionist and fascist state.
And the Palestinians just won't learn to sit down, shut up and take it.

I agree with you up to the last term, although Israeli politics is very right wing I wouldn't use the term fascist.

Israel is in a very difficult position but the treatment of the Palestinian people is an abomination. The two state solution is a nonsense debate, it just serves to allow further annexation to take place.

Are you suggesting then that there should be a 'one state solution' i.e. the absorption of all of Palestine into Israel or the reverse, or have you just expressed yourself very poorly?  If it is the former, a  very strange proposition.

Israeli politics is actually a mix of a wide range of political opinions and parties. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_members_of_the_nineteenth_Knesset

Sam I puntered you because of your description of Israel as a fascist state, I doubt you have any real knowledge of the concept of fascism and are merely parroting drivel you've picked up from The Young Ones or some other source which while as equally moronic was not quite as amusing. (Gaza is run on lines very reminiscent of a fascist state, but that's another issue).

The description of Israel as a fascist state, references to the 'holocaust' of the Palestinians and so on is the hallmark of those that transfer their disagreement with the actions of the Israeli government to individuals like me. 

There is still a rich vein of antisemitism within British society (regrettably even here we've seen the use of the phrase 'jewed out' or similar to describe buying a cheaper option of a product) and sadly too frequently protest against the Israeli government's policies brings this to the fore.

These prejudices are not harmless, they are malign, corrosive and pernicious: and in my view need to be met head on. 

It is entirely proper to question the actions of the government of Israel and its actions: and in now way antisemitic so to do: however that criticism and debate far too often shifts from a critique / protest about the government >>> the state of Israel >>> to Israels >>> Jews. 

Sadly too many 'pro-Palestinians' conflate the actions of the government of Israel with 'Jews' and abuse (and worse) Jewish people, shops and institutions as a result with a perverted form of self justification.

In Manchester recently there was the usual crowd of lefties who staged a protest lasting weeks outside a shop selling cosmetics as if this was a proxy for the Israeli government / IDF, when in reality the sole reason was because it was owned by Jews.

I find it rather depressing that one still sees people 'of and on the left' proudly wearing the iconography of a failed fascist state which transported millions of minorities to their deaths who somehow then are able to perform the mental gymnastics to 1. equate the holocaust with the situation in Palestine and 2. overlook much greater 'wrongs' because the perpetrators are associated with the political dogma.

The 'fog' of anti-Israeli protest allows antisemitism to develop just as the immigration debate allows racism to develop, what is I think instructive is how those who might be characterised as being typical of the 'pro-Palestinian' protestor decry the inherent racism of those who advance a 'no more immigration' stance reject any suggestion that there's a hint of antisemitism in their own ranks, often with the argument that as Palestinians are 'semitic too' they can't be antisemitic.

The Palestinian situation is a tragedy, and one that is not just confined to Gaza but repeated in the refugee camps in Jordan and else where, what the solution is I do not know but I am sure that the vile antisemitic teachings in schools in Gaza and external actors paying for 1000's of rockets to fire at Israel do not help. 

The Palestinians need to have a viable state and a government which applies basic standards of the rule of law within its own borders before there can be real moves towards peace, sadly that seems to be a long way off. 

[psychomansam]

fascist = highly militarised authoritarian and oppressive regime pushing a radical nationalist agenda.

Is it an appropriate label for Israel? Well, I also use strong derogatory labels for the UK, US and other nations in a position of power. Particularly, I use them with regards the foreign policy of nations able to exert power via their foreign policy and abusing that position. This is a worthwhile way of judging a country, a society, a group, club or individual. How do they treat those with whom they do not self-identify? In a globalised world in which powerful nations boast of their human rights glories while violating human rights internationally, it's a necessary mechanism for judging the true moral quality of a country.

If the Israeli public can sit on hilltops and cheers their own bombs falling on the homes of children across their border, a border which they violate with impunity creating a virtual prison camp, I think the shoe fits. If the IDF can run tanks over Palestinian babies and freely treat Palestinian like animals, the shoe fits. The foreign policy of Israel is fascist.

And what of Palestine? There are clearly some deeply unpleasant people there. A huge amount of people have turned to violence for their defence. After decades of illegal aggression against them, it seems many Gazans are clearly unconcerned about committing war crimes and do so with impunity.

The question of blame, though, comes down to the balance of power. Who has the vast majority of the power in this situation? Who is really in a position to change things? Who has the backing of the most powerful nation on earth? Thus the vast majority of the blame lies with Israel. They are the only party capable of producing meaningful change. They are also the only party over which the West can exert great influence.

[a dense loner]

Looking across a broad spectrum of your posts Sam i don't think you live in the real world.

[psychomansam]

Looking across a broad spectrum of your posts Sam i don't think you live in the real world.

My real world involves debt, tiredness and a school in special measures.
Fuck that.

[mrjonathanr]

Are you suggesting then that there should be a 'one state solution' i.e. the absorption of all of Palestine into Israel or the reverse, or have you just expressed yourself very poorly?  If it is the former, a  very strange proposition.

It is the former, on this basis:

The only fair and I would suggest rational borders are the 47, not pre 67 ones. This isn't going to happen. Judging by the rest of your post, you'll understand that full well.

The pre 67 borders aren't going to happen either. If Israel genuinely wanted a two state solution, there would be one.  The excuses about 'terrorists' derailing the process are, in context, spurious.

The 'two state solution' is a basis for procrastination and enables an ongoing land-grab - look at  the most recent settlements. 

What will happen is that Israel will subsume all of the land it wants in the West Bank and Gaza will become so squeezed that many Gazans will simply have to leave. It's tiny, getting tinier and increasingly uninhabitable, will run out of sufficient water in 2020 by sensible estimates.


There is no viable Palestinian state.

What is viable is a single state in Palestine with equality under the law for all citizens, Jews and Arabs. This is obviously going to meet intense opposition, but I believe other propositions are simply fanciful.

As regards the rest of your post.

Hamas and rockets and indoctrination - yes, yes, we know this, what they are. I've read the Charter, have you? But we don't hear as much annihilation talk nowadays. Ultimately Hamas can - and I suggest will- shift position if it's expedient and the gains are there.

Nota bene the $225m aid passed by Washington  while the conflict raged. The conflict is fuelled by outside agencies on both sides, but most munificently towards Israel. A behemoth vs a gnat.

Your points about the elision of criticism of the Jewish State to hatred of the Jews and the apparent legitimisation of the latter under cover of the former are bang on.  I believe however that aggressive Zionism is no friend to world Jewry in the longer (or even shorter) term.  Look at France; a 5 fold increase this year in anti-semitic incidents, real fascists now circling on the edge of real power with the matronly Marina Le Pen a contender for Présidente -READ THIS.

This is tending to crisis and Isreal's actions are most emphatically not helping.

About fascism as a term: fasces symbolising power of life and death were carried before a magistrate -as every good lawyer (and Mussolini) will know. As a specific political credo it can only apply under specific criteria. Israel doesn't meet them. It isn't a necessary term to bash Israel with as the state is already open to a myriad of serious accusations. Crimes against humanity being amongst them.

Redolent of Third Reich, fascist is not to me an acceptable term to apply to the Jewish State.

[mrjonathanr]

My real world involves ... a school in special measures.

  Have a wad point.

[Sloper]

I'll take issue with just one point, and that is in respect of the institutions of state in Palestine, Hamas (whether you regard themselves as the proper representatives of the people of Gaza or not) seem to hold certain aspects of statehood (such as the rule of law and other institutions) anathema.

As to reading the Hamas charter I don't read Arabic and therefore can only consider the various translations of which there are a number and I would suggest all are politicised to a degree and most highly so.

For there to be peace there needs to be a meeting of minds between two states (assuming states can have a collective mind, itself a subject of intense jurisprudential debate) and it is rather tricky to say the least, for there to be an engagement with Hamas who reject basic precepts of the foundations of a state.

Israel and its successive governments has move considerably towards a peaceful resolution to the conflict (often while under active enemy fire) despite vociferous internal opposition, sadly the scope for movement from Hamas seems to be distinctly limited.

Opportunities for Hamas to engage (other than militarily) have been presented and have been spurned.  Israel withdrew from Gaza and left a massive amount of infrastructure . . . which was then systematically destroyed.

[mrjonathanr]

I don't have time to address this mid-week, but it deserves some consideration, especially as it is the dominant narrative.  ie Israel has sued for peace but the Palestinian representatives have failed to grasp the opportunity.

And it would take me some time as I'm just a person who has formed a view, not an authority on this.

Israel and its successive governments has move considerably towards a peaceful resolution to the conflict (often while under active enemy fire) despite vociferous internal opposition, sadly the scope for movement from Hamas seems to be distinctly limited.

Opportunities for Hamas to engage (other than militarily) have been presented and have been spurned.  Israel withdrew from Gaza and left a massive amount of infrastructure . . . which was then systematically destroyed.

I think it's a hasbaran canard and doesn't fit the facts. There's destructive behaviour on both sides but the story in its broad brush puts the responsibility fully onto the Palestinians. I don't think that is an accurate representation.

As I said before, If Israel wanted peace - enough to compromise on land - then peace would already be there.

I'm not anti Israel btw. Not when I have a parent who was sufficiently motivated to leave these shores to go join the IDF. I just call it the way I see it.

[Will Hunt]

The lack of ambition to implement a two state solution above is a bit troubling.
As I see it, a one state solution is either going to create an apartheid state or be unacceptable to Israel as the state will cease to exist in its current form. As such it is not something that we can realistically work towards.

A two state solution is the only thing the world can satisfactorily aim for. Whilst Netanyahu and his chums are in power, I don't think that we will get there and that Israel is likely to continue with incremental, piecemeal deterioration of the Palestinian territories until they have been absorbed or are simply uninhabitable.

Hopefully the hard line Zionism that we have now will recede and Israel will be governed by more reasonable people who are more open to peace. Fingers crossed then.

[Sloper]

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/sep/16/rotherham-child-sex-abuse-pcc-shaun-wright-resigns

I wonder what's cahnged? The cynic in me says there's been a pay off, if so then I think heads should roll.

[Oldmanmatt]

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/sep/16/rotherham-child-sex-abuse-pcc-shaun-wright-resigns

I wonder what's cahnged? The cynic in me says there's been a pay off, if so then I think heads should roll.

An ardent cynic might even wonder if the whole " I'm not resigning" episode was based around securing a soft landing...

[mrjonathanr]

The lack of ambition to implement a two state solution above is a bit troubling.
As I see it, a one state solution is either going to create an apartheid state or be unacceptable to Israel as the state will cease to exist in its current form. As such it is not something that we can realistically work towards.

Where would it be? There isn't enough land, you can't build a country in a couple of fields.

Two little bits of land completely encircled and policed by the IDF? Split in two, dominated by different factions (PA and Hamas), unable to perform the basic functions of a state, have free movement, control borders, bear arms? True independence isn't going to happen whether you have Hamas, Abbas or Mother Teresa at the helm.

Will, there isn't going to be a two state solution. It's a chimera, an illusion. Politics has to be the art of the possible.

[Sloper]

The lack of ambition to implement a two state solution above is a bit troubling.
As I see it, a one state solution is either going to create an apartheid state or be unacceptable to Israel as the state will cease to exist in its current form. As such it is not something that we can realistically work towards.

A two state solution is the only thing the world can satisfactorily aim for. Whilst Netanyahu and his chums are in power, I don't think that we will get there and that Israel is likely to continue with incremental, piecemeal deterioration of the Palestinian territories until they have been absorbed or are simply uninhabitable.

Hopefully the hard line Zionism that we have now will recede and Israel will be governed by more reasonable people who are more open to peace. Fingers crossed then.

The use of phrases such as 'apartheid' state, is again inappropriate language born from lazy ignorance or less pleasant reasons.  No one is doubting that there are many in Israel who are deeply prejudiced, but the state is not, the laws of Israel are not discriminatory: compared against say the situation in Greece, the Israeli legal settlement is a bastion of liberty.

Comparing the situation in Israel to SA in say 1985 is just silly (not as silly as Sam's description) and demeans the debate.

In the UK, black men are disproportionately likely to die in police custody, be stopped & searched, BME solicitors are more likely to be referred to the disciplinary tribunal and receive harsher sentences than white solicitors, recently we had a party which most would be consider explicitly racist sending MEP's to Strasbourg, the EDL can turn out hundreds of violent thugs at short notice, are we an apartheid or racist nation? No of course not.

[Jaspersharpe]

Russell Brand:

http://www.private-eye.co.uk/sections.php?section_link=media_news&issue=1375

I thought PE were probably exaggerating so I had a quick look on Youtube. Oh dear.

[a dense loner]

The only sense I could get from that was that his mate should be called "Johann Hair"

[Sloper]

He's a journalist that got sacked for fabricating stories and plagarism.