Eurovision 2019: And So It Ends.

Saturday (18/5/19) saw the Grand Finale of the 64th Eurovision Song Contest.

Every year I try and perfect a standard template of how to cover the Eurovision Song Contest. Something to which I can just quickly copy & paste all the relevant information into. So it can be discussed while the event is still fresh in everyone's minds.

Every year I fail spectacularly.

The Grand Finale of the 2018 Song Contest took place on May 12th (12/5/18). My coverage dragged out until July 25th (25/7/18).

The Eurovision Song Contest is something which is very much defined by the people who turn up. Every time I think I've found a way to explain the Song Contest the people who turn up decide to do it differently.

Generally speaking though the Song Contest is used by nations to raise the political issues which are important to them.

This is why Eurovision has one golden rule, songs cannot be overtly political. If they were each year would rapidly descend into a riot rather than a singing competition.

When I say; "Political Issues" I tend not to mean things like the specific amendments to clauses of bills being passed by Parliaments.

That said Moldova's 2018 Song Contest entry was; "My Lucky Day" by DoReDoS. The main message was the November 2017 agreement reached between Moldova and Transnistria. An ethnically Russian region of Moldova which broke away from Moldova in the chaos surrounding the collapse of the Soviet Union.

All three members of the band were from the Transnistria. So simply having them represent Moldova was a sign of unity. In the stage performance the band members were accompanied by identical body doubles. Giving the impression they had split away, as if by some process of Mitosis cell division.

The video in support of the entry featured one of the band members using an old public telephone, presumably to call home. Highlighting the section of the November 2017 agreement to harmonise cell phone coverage between Moldova and Transnistria.

The video also featured lots of shots of a car driving along country roads, amongst the farmland. Highlighting the sections of the November 2017 agreement allowing Moldovan vehicles to use roads in Transnistria and vice versa. Along with the sections of the November 2017 agreement allowing farmers access to cross-border farmlands.

The references to having romantic relations with lots of different partners suggested both Moldova and Transnistria might be open to joining the European Union (EU).

The political issues raised at Eurovision tend to be more broader, social issues which influence people's everyday lives. Yet either do not warrant the attention of politicians and governments or have failed to catch their attention.

San Marino's 2015 entry "Chain of Lights" by Anita Simoncini & Michele Perniola being a prime example. This dealt with the then new phenomenon of; "Sexting." Teenagers sending each other sexually explicit images and videos over cell phones and social media.

Sexting is obviously an issue which potentially affects all children and teenagers in many European societies. Along with their parents and teachers. However in 2015 it wasn't an issue that had really caught the attention of governments, politicians and lawmakers.

Frustratingly San Marino's entry that year seemed to go over everyone's head and they didn't make it through to the Grand Finale. Then over the next two years the issue of Sexting did suddenly catch everyone's attention with it constantly being on the news amid demands for governments to act.

Eurovision is really good at issues which, although they affect society, do not warrant the attention of politicians and lawmakers.

For example amongst the Eurovision nations there is a general consensus that governments have no right to interfere with the sex lives of their adult citizens.

National attitudes to things like sexuality are also constantly changing and evolving.

These changing attitudes are often highlighted by the differences in the rules different nations pass controlling what can be shown on television. In terms of nudity, sexual content and offensive language.

These changes and evolutions mean that these issues of society's attitude to things like sex and sexuality come up time and time again at the Song Contest. Often with different results.

The Eurovision Song Contest has been a long and proud advocate for gay-rights. Often shining as a beacon for gay people surrounded by the darkness of intolerance and oppression. Such is the Song Contest's reputation it is often mistaken as simply a gay event.

Obviously in any year certain political issues are considered important by more than one country. These common interests often tend to emerge as themes. They are then discussed, often in quite a lot of specific detail, by the interested parties.

This obviously does not happen automatically. It is part of a process throughout the week of competition. Involving much bartering and horse trading both within the competition and the parties and unofficial gatherings which surround it.

In covering the Song Contest I normally start by trying to identify the issues raised and the themes which have emerged. To show how these issues have been discussed.

The winner is normally the one who has made the best contribution to those contributions. The musical and performance skill they use in the discussion is considered a major factor in considering their contribution.

The 2019 Eurovision Song Contest was held in Tel Aviv, Israel. A country which is surrounded by at least two active warzones. The warzone in Israel's neighbour Syria has been extremely active since 2011.

Even if you are not a Song Contest fan you may well have been aware of when delegations started arriving in Israel to begin final preparations and rehearsals. That weekend of Saturday, May 4th (4/5/19) was marked by militants in Gaza firing some 700 rockets into Israel and Israel conducting some 300 airstrikes in Gaza.

To give you an idea of how intense those two days of violence were. Throughout all of 2018 militants in Gaza only fired a total of around 1,000 rockets into Israel.

As a result of these exceptional circumstances I moved my usual coverage forward by a week. Identifying the main issues and themes before the Song Contest proper had even begun.

You can read that here; https://watchitdie.blogspot.com/2019/05/eurovision-2019-and-so-it-begins.html

And here; https://watchitdie.blogspot.com/2019/05/eurovision-2019-and-so-it-continues.html

I identified one of the major themes as; "Brexit." Britain's exit from the EU.

Nothing about that issue has really changed since I gave it extensive coverage back in January 2019. Nor is that issue likely to change. What needs to change is the attitude of British Parliamentarians.

You can still read my extensive Brexit coverage in two distinct sections.

The First, dealing with the Withdrawal Agreement, starting here; https://watchitdie.blogspot.com/2019/01/britains-brexit-withdrawal-agreement_46.html

The Second, dealing the wider political situation, starting here; https://watchitdie.blogspot.com/2019/01/britains-brexit-withdrawal-agreement_57.html

I also looked at the similarities between the issues raised by Brexit and the Israel/Palestine Conflict. Although, by that point, I was suffering from a nasty bout of the Flu.

For the sense that it does make you can read that,

Here; https://watchitdie.blogspot.com/2019/01/a-brexit-blockade-on-common-knowledge.html

And Here; https://watchitdie.blogspot.com/2019/01/a-brexit-blockade-on-common-knowledge_24.html

So I assure you that you already know the answers to the main issues at the Eurovision Song Contest this year.

You just may not realise that you already know the answers.

At around 18:20 on 19/5/19 (UK date) tomorrow I will start looking at the minor themes and the entries themselves in more detail.

Eurovision 2019: And So it Continues.

A direct continuation of; https://watchitdie.blogspot.com/2019/05/eurovision-2019-and-so-it-begins.html

If your rheumy eyes can't spot the small addition you're probably not detail orientated enough for Eurovision.

In that post I looked at why Israel is hosting the 2019 Eurovision Song Contest.

It is an attempt to put the Israel/Palestine Conflict back in the spotlight. Due to the ongoing war in Israel's other neighbour, Syria, the Israel/Palestine Conflict is in danger of becoming yet another of the World's forgotten wars.

For example Eurovision has finally forced me to make the time to write about the incredibly bad humanitarian situation in Gaza.

Along with how that growing sense of hopelessness is being shown through the weekly March of Return Protests. Where Gazans now seem prepared to die simply because life in Gaza has become so bad they can no longer bear to live there.

Despite this the Song Contest community has come under attack from other supposed supporters of the Palestinian people. Particularly through the campaign group; "Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS)."

This is actually far from the first time that Eurovision has clashed with BDS.

Up until 1997 there was no public voting at the Eurovision Song Contests. All points were awarded by shadowy national juries.

There's never been any strict rules about how these jury panels were selected. It's really been left up for each nation to decide.

However the tend to be, what's known in political jargon as; "Quasi-Autonomous, Non-Governmental Organisations (QUANGOS)."

That means that they are not part of the nation's government. But they are close to, and have good communication with, people who are part of the nation's government. Particularly the diplomatic and intelligence services.

This year Iceland are providing an excellent example of this type of relationship.

They are represented by the band Hatari one of whose members is Matthias Tryggvi Haraldson. He is the son of Iceland's current Ambassador to the UK. So if he as any questions about British politics he certainly knows who to call.

In the days before public voting Israel's participation was an extremely precise affair. The strength of its entry in any particular year would be balanced against the nation's behaviour. Particularly towards the Palestinians.

This is something which was clearly shown with Israel's 2018 Song Contest entry.

The US moved its Embassy to Jerusalem, effectively recognising the city as Israel's capital. This was met with widespread international condemnation. As a result Israel knew they had to produce a very strong Song Contest entry.

Conversely if Israel's actions have been met with widespread approval, such as dismantling illegal settlements, Israel would produce a relatively weak Song Contest entry.

The extent to which weak entries are marked up and strong entries are marked down, and by which nations, became an important way to support or condemn Israel's behaviour.

When public voting was introduced this precision all but disappeared from the Song Contest.

Particularly from the mid-2000's onwards it was replaced by really quite nasty anti-Semitism. It didn't matter how good or bad the entry was or how well or poorly Israel was behaving. The Israeli entry would always be voted out before the Grand-Finale.

This became extremely frustrating for all concerned.

Along with the Scandinavian nations like Sweden and Norway, Italy and Russia Israel is one of those nations which is naturally very good at the Song Contest. Even when they're not really trying or deliberately putting forward a weak entry they normally still deserve to end up in the top 10-15 overall.

You could argue that the Eurovision Song Contest is just a silly little game that nations play. However if people aren't even bothering the play the game then it all becomes just utterly pointless.

This trend of rising anti-Semitism at the Song Contest of course reflected a wider trend of rising anti-Semitism across European society. This coincided with a similar shift and growth in the BDS campaign.

The specific campaign group BDS was only formed in 2005.

However the tactic of using Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions to support the Palestinians has been around for much longer. Certainly since the Boycott Movement against Apartheid in South Africa began in 1959.

In my student protest days, around the start of the 21st century, I had a lot of involvement with pro-Palestinian activists who used BDS tactics. Many of them were not only Jewish themselves but actually Israeli Jews. Living in Europe to avoid going to prison for refusing the serve in the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF).

These BDS activists would work tirelessly to identify the companies which were profiting from Israel's occupation of the West Bank, and at that time Gaza. Not only would they identify the companies they would also identify the specific actions those companies were taking.

This knowledge was then used to tailor specific campaigns for each company. Based on its actions and how it was profiting from the Israeli occupation.

So for example a company like Caterpillar would be given a high priority for intense action. Its profits from the occupation simply came from selling the IDF bulldozers to be used to demolish Palestinian homes.

A company like SodaStream would be given a much lower priority. Its profits from the occupation came from operating a factory at the Israeli settlement of Lehavim.

However this Lehavim factory employed both Palestinians and Israeli Jews. Providing scarce work for the Palestinians and an environment were Palestinians and Israeli Jews were able to co-exist.

This idea of using economic prosperity as a mechanism for peace has time-and-time again shown itself to be highly effective.

It is the central idea behind the 1998 Good Friday Agreement which ended The Troubles in Northern Ireland. The need to protect Ireland/Northern Ireland cross-border trade, and therefore peace, has become a major sticking point in Britain's exit from the EU.

The BDS activists I knew would not only identify the companies and their specific operations. They would also look at how decisions are made with in the company.

So for example if an election for the board of directors saw an aggressive, Zionist candidate running against a moderate candidate. There BDS activists would make sure all the shareholders in the company knew about this.

In order to try and get the moderate candidate elected. Hopefully changing the direction of the company.

In this new breed of pro-Palestinian activist, led by the BDS campaign group itself, all of that precision and work has disappeared. They no longer look at the specific companies, how they make their profits and how they make their decisions.

SodaStream's Lehavim factory is a prime example of this. Having been given a low priority by BDS campaigns it suddenly became a prime target for this new breed. In 2016 it was forced to shutdown for good. Removing that vital mechanism of peace through Palestinian prosperity.

That new breed of BDS activist don't even seem to bother look at whether the companies actually operate in the Israeli occupied West Bank. Instead they target all companies and people with any connection to Israel. Regardless of whether they're involved in occupied West Bank territories.

Sadly from some its quite clear that the problem isn't that Israel is occupying Palestinian territory. It's that Jews exist at all.

I think one of the main driving factors in this shift was the US and British invasion of Iraq in 2003.

This renewed an alliance between pro-Palestinian activists and the political left in Europe and America. At a level not seen since the golden age of terrorism in the 1960's and 1970's.

That alliance was further strengthened be a succession of Israeli wars against Gaza and Lebanon. In 2006 and again in 2008.

One the main problems with this alliance is that the political left in Europe and the US aren't really that interested in the plight of the Palestinians. Instead they are doing to serve their own political agenda.

For example in Britain the Liberal Democrat (LibDem) party built its entire popularity on being the only main political party to oppose the Iraq war.

They then of course proceeded to completely destroy that popularity by joining a coalition with the Conservative Party in 2010. Immediately breaking a campaign pledge not to increase student tuition fees.

The Iraq War came shortly after Democrat US President Bill Clinton was succeeded by Republican US President George W Bush. Something which involved President Bush defeating Democrat candidate Al Gore.

As now seems to be the pattern when it comes time for US Democrats to cede power they do not do so peacefully. President Bush's election was met with the same wave of protests and legal challenges that we're seeing now Republican President Trump has replaced Democrat President Obama.

So for much of the American political left their objections to the Iraq War were not moral ones. It was just their latest excuse to try and unseat a Republican President.

With the European and American political left only being interested in how the Palestine issue can further their own agenda they actually know very little about the subject. I for example know that Palestine and Iraq are different countries. They do not appear to.

A prime example was when a British Conservative Minister, Priti Patel, was found to have made an unofficial visit to Israel in late 2017. It's claimed that there she promised to help get Britain to recognise Israel's sovereignty over the occupied Golan Heights.

The British political left immediately demanded that Priti Patel resign. And that the Golan Heights be returned to the Palestinians.

Which caused a fair bit of confusion amongst the Israelis, the Palestinians and the Syrians. From whom Israel had annexed the Golan Heights in 1967.

This lack of knowledge extends not just to the region and its politics but Muslims as a whole.

European and American leftists tend not to see Muslims as people but as a sort of mythical and exotic other. No more a part of real life than the dusky, brown tribes in Game of Thrones.

For the typically very white, very privileged leftists one Muslim friend is the ultimate fashion accessory and bragging right. Far more a badge of honour than having one gay friend, or even one transgender friend.

Not being able to see Muslims as people European and American people seem unable to question them. Holding them to the same standards you would anyone else.

An excellent example of this was New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern. And how she handled the issue of autopsies in the wake of the March 2019 Christchurch shootings.

I genuinely don't think she realises that while its a religious teaching most Muslims don't actually believe that the human body feels pain after death.

This is a particular issue in Britain. A significant proportion of British Muslims practice a form of Islam known as Deobandism. This is a very extreme form of Islam which is similar to Whabbism.

It's really why many of those Muslims are now living in Britain. They pretty much got kicked out of Pakistan and Bangladesh for being too extreme.

That lack of knowledge means that many European and American leftists don't realise that in many forms of Islam there is a deeply ingrained culture of anti-Semitism. This has nothing to do with Israel's treatment of Palestinans and preceeds the creation of the state of Israel by nearly a thousand years.

Not understanding that opposition to Israel and certain Muslim's anti-Semitism are separate things European and American leftists often end up getting the two things confused.

Under Jeremy Corbyn Britain's Labour Party seem to produce examples of this on an almost hourly basis. A particular example is Labour MP Naz Shah.

At one point Naz Shah claimed that Muslim men have the right to sexually abuse non-Muslim children. Any attempt by the police and courts to stop them is nothing more than Islamaphobia.

A view that caused a lot more shock in the Muslim world than it did amongst British leftists.

In April 2016 it was revealed that Naz Shah had made a series of anti-Semitic Tweets. Including one that called to Israel to be relocated to America.

This idea had been used as a joke in the TV show; "The Big Bang Theory." Which can hardly be accused on being anti-Semitic. One of the stars of the show, Mayim Bialik, is very Jewish. She insists that all her costumes adhere to Orthodox modesty standards.

So many British leftists didn't understand why Naz Shah's comments were anti-Semitic.

In the TV show the idea was used as a joke about the character making the suggestion. To show how out of touch with reality he was.

In her comments Naz Shah was trying to erase the thousands of years of history in which Jews have lived in and around the area of modern Israel. Once you start trying to erase people from history it's a small step to trying to erase them from the present.

In America, back in November 2018, a commentator for the CNN news network was fired for anti-Semitism. After he, Marc Lamont Hill, gave a speech at the UN on International Palestinian Solidarity day. Calling for; "A Free Palestine From the River to the Sea."

Again many leftists couldn't understand why this was anti-Semitic Any different from calling for the creation of a Palestinian state as part of the two state solution.

Calling for a Palestine from the river to the sea demands a single Palestinian state. Stretching from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. That involves the destruction of Israel and its entire Jewish population.

Essentially exterminating or ethnically cleansing some 8 million people. Ten times the number of the roughly 800,000 Palestinians who were displaced by the creation of Israel.

It is not a call for tolerance and peaceful coexistence.

Aside from the Israel/Palestine Conflict there are two other main issues. Which I don't think will really come as a surprise to anyone.

Western Balkans.

This really deals with the ongoing threat of the Greater Albania movement.

Greater Albania was an area created during the Nazi occupation of Europe. By the Muslim Nazis that European and American leftists don't seem to think exist. It stretched far beyond the modern nation of Albania including parts of Serbia, Montenegro, Macedonia and even parts of Greece.

Far from being a thing of the past this Greater Albania movement still very much exists and is constantly trying to re-establish the expanded Albanian nation.

This was the cause of the 1999 Kosovo War where Albania simply stole Serbia's southern Kosovo Province. With the help of then US President Clinton who really needed to distract voters from his impeachment.

The EU's solution to this Albanian threat is simply to absorb Albania and its neighbours as members.

The main sticking point has been Macedonia. This has been locked in a long-running dispute with its neighbour Greece. As an existing EU member Greece has been able to block Macedonia becoming a member.

Greece objects to Macedonia's use of the name; "Macedonia."

They think this implies a territorial claim over the Greek province of Macedonia. Which directly neighbours Macedonia the country. As a result Macedonia has long been officially known as; "The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia." FYR Macedonia.

After years of EU-led negotiations FYR Macedonia agreed to change its name to; "North Macedonia." Pending the idea being supported by a public referendum in September 2018.

The EU agreed that this referendum would need a turnout of at least 50% in order to be legally binding.

However the name change idea was deeply unpopular amongst Macedonian voters who boycotted the vote. Meaning that it had a turnout of 36%. Roughly the exact number of ethnic Albanians living in Macedonia.

In its own uniquely democratic way the EU then overturned the referendum law and imposed the name change of Macedonia anyway.

Without a hint of irony the EU even hailed this deeply unpopular and widely boycotted referendum as an amazing victory for democracy. Of which all Europeans should be proud.

This is the first Song Contest where Macedonia is appearing under its new formal name; "North Macedonia."

Macedonia's name change and it and Albania's accession to the EU should have been the main item on the agenda at the December 2018 EU Council (EUCO).

Until it was hijacked by British Parliamentarians complete inability to cope with Britain's Withdrawal Agreement with the EU.

Also the logo the Israeli hosts have chosen for this years Song Contest is a five pointed star. Except one of the segments looks like it keeps trying to break away and leave.

I'm sure Hovi Star, who represented Israel at the 2016 Song Contest will assure you this is a reference to the Star of David at the centre of Israel's flag. Before it evolved into that design the symbol of the Jewish was, for a long time, a five pointed star. Similar to the one currently used on Morocco's flag.

This year's Eurovision logo though does seem remarkably similar to the logo Britain's BBC News uses for its Brexit coverage.

So it should come as little surprise that the other major theme this year is;

Brexit.

Even here Britain has managed to screw this up.

It's entry was selected in early February 2019. It is built entirely around the idea that Britain would have already exited the EU and now be negotiating trade deals with the rest of the World.

So although Britain has once again brought its way into the Grand-Finale I'm not holding out much hope.

Even Britain seems to be trying to make the scandal of the Jeremy Kyle show its entry this year. Eurovision is, of course, a TELEVISION Song Contest.

While it didn't make it through the First Semi-Final I was actually really impressed by Hungary's contribution to the Brexit discussion.

The main theme of Hungary's entry was comparing the suffering of Europe's Jews with the suffering of Europe's Gypsies. First under the Nazis and then under the Soviets.

Europe's Jews suffering under the Nazis is of course well known. They seem to have got a country out of it and a free pass to behave as badly as they like.

Particularly in America Europe's Jews suffering under the Soviets is also very well known. It was a recurring story of the Cold War.

Throughout the Cold War Russian Jews would try to flee Soviet oppression by emigrating to Israel. Every time they applied for an exit visa it would be refused. The application form coming back with the word; "Otkaz" or "Refusal" stamped on it.

As a result these Russian Jews became known as "Otkazniks" or "Refuseniks." Those who have been refused.

The British media have taken to referring to MP's, such as Yvette Cooper etc, who are trying to block Brexit as; "Refuseniks." 

If you know a bit of Russian or are familiar with the Cold War story that really sets your teeth on edge. Every time you hear it.

In the Brexit metaphor the Refuseniks are the are the MP's who want to leave the EU. Boris Johnson, Nigel Farage, Jacob Rees-Mogg etc.

The likes of Yvette Cooper are the anti-Semitic, totalitarian bureaucrats who keep stamping "Refusal" on the application to leave.

Although most of us just refer to her by her name. The rest is implied.

10:42 on 16/5/19 (UK date).

Eurovision 2019: And So It Begins.

Sunday (12/5/19) saw the traditional Opening Gala which marks the start of the Eurovision Song Contest. Hosted this year in Tel Aviv, Israel.

Tuesday (14/5/19) will see the First Semi-Final.

Thursday (16/5/19) will see the Second Semi-Final.

This all builds towards Saturday's (18/5/19) Grand Finale. Where a winner will be crowned. 

Every year I try and perfect a template of how to cover the Eurovision Song Contest. Something I can quickly use to dissect the event while it is still fresh in everyone's minds.

Every year I fail.

The Eurovision Song Contest is something which is very much defined by the people who turn up. Every time I think I've found a way to explain the Song Contest the people who turn up decide to do it differently.

Generally speaking though the Song Contest is used by nations to raise the political issues which are important to them.

This is why Eurovision has one golden rule, songs cannot be overtly political. If they were each year would rapidly descend into a riot rather than a singing competition.

When I say; "Political Issues" I tend not to mean things like the specific amendments to clauses of bills being passed by Parliaments.

Although this year one country seems very interested in Articles 11 and 13 of the The European Union Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market. Recently passed by the EU Parliament. Quite an achievement for a three minute popsong.

The political issues raised at Eurovision tend to be more broader, social issues which influence people's everyday lives. Yet either do not warrant the attention of politicians and governments or have failed to catch their attention.

San Marino's 2015 entry "Chain of Lights" by Anita Simoncini & Michele Perniola being a prime example. This dealt with the then new phenomenon of; "Sexting." Teenagers sending each other sexually explicit images and videos over cell phones and social media.

Sexting is obviously an issue which potentially affects all children and teenagers in many European societies. Along with their parents and teachers. However in 2015 it wasn't an issue that had really caught the attention of governments, politicians and lawmakers.

Frustratingly San Marino's entry that year seemed to go over everyone's head and they didn't make it through to the Grand Finale. Then over the next two years the issue of Sexting did suddenly catch everyone's attention with it constantly being on the news amid demands for governments to act.

Eurovision is really good at issues which, although they affect society, do not warrant the attention of politicians and lawmakers.

For example amongst the Eurovision nations there is a general consensus that governments have no right to interfere with the sex lives of their adult citizens.

National attitudes to things like sexuality are also constantly changing and evolving. These changes and evolutions mean that they come up time and time again at the Song Contest. Often with different results.

The Eurovision Song Contest has been a long and proud advocate for gay-rights. Often shining as a beacon for gay people surrounded by the darkness of intolerance and oppression. Such is the Song Contest's reputation it is often mistaken as simply a gay event.

Obviously in any year certain political issues are considered important by more than one country. These common interests often tend to emerge as themes. They are then discussed, often in quite a lot of specific detail, by the interested parties.

This obviously does not happen automatically. It is part of a process throughout the week of competition. Involving much bartering and horse trading both within the competition and the parties and unofficial gatherings which surround it.

One thing I have learnt over the years is that it is important to protect the integrity of this process. For me that has come to mean maintaining the discipline to limit myself to just a Twitter commentary during the Grand Finale. Rather than blurting it all out now.

Following what I consider a personal success last year I'm considering expanding the Twitter commentary to both of the Semi-Finals. However I'm not sure I have the talent to mention everyone while still protecting the integrity of the process. So competitors should not consider themselves snubbed if they're left out of what I consider an experiment.

That said the fact that the 2019 Eurovision Song Contest is being held in Israel presents a number of exceptional challenges. It has also attracted significant interest beyond its normal fanbase.

So protecting the integrity of the process might have to become a secondary concern to keeping people informed and included.

I also don't think it will come as much of a surprise as to what the main political issues this year will be.

The Israel/Palestine Conflict. 

Far from being something that it is impossible to avoid this is the entire reason why the 2019 Eurovision Song Contest is being held in Israel.

The 2018 Eurovision Song Contest, at which Israel won the right to host this year, was a subdued affair. The main political topics was really the 2016 Eurovision Song Contest and the 2017 Eurovision Song Contest. The main theme was why the Song Contest community has been making such bad decisions of late.

As a result the 2018 Song Contest was only really for hardcore Song Contest fans. People who were there in 2016 and 2017.

The exception was Israel. They had a big issue of their own that needed to be discussed.

In December 2017 US President Trump announced that America was moving its Embassy to Israel to Jerusalem. In effect recognising it, rather than Tel Aviv, as Israel's capital.

This announcement triggered universal condemnation. Including only the 11th time in history that the UN General Assembly has overturned a veto by the UN Security Council. In order to endorse a resolution condemning the move.

Such was the size of the backlash against the Embassy move the joke amongst the Song Contest community was that Israel would have to respond by going big at the 2018 Song Contest. Very big.

That is exactly what Israel did. They were represented by Netta Barzilai who is somewhat larger than your typical female popstar. That alone triggered discussion about the way that women are treated in the entertainment industry. A timely topic given the Harvey Weinstein scandal and the #MeToo movement.

In its staging Israel raised the issue of growing Chinese wealth and influence. They did this by subtly referencing the British popstar Jessie J's curious decision to appear as a contestant on a Chinese search-for-a-star style TV talent show.

This image of Jessie J surrounded by Chinese gold was conjured up by the use on stage of dozens of golden "Maneki-Neko." Or "Beckoning cats."

Along with Netta's Kimono this lead to it being attacked for "Cultural Appropriation." That strange thought-crime dreamt up by US Democrats and liberals. Which was widely mocked at the 2018 Winter Olympics, held in the Asian nation of the Republic of Korea (RoK/South).

The irony being that those accusing Netta of appropriating Chinese culture didn't realise that Maneki-Neko are Japanese in origin. It is China that culturally appropriated them.

A practice that used to be considered normal throughout all of human history. Until US liberals and Democrats got involved.

So Israel's entry was clearly the strongest and best entry in the 2018 Song Contest. By quite some distance.

The song itself was entitled; "Toy." It's main message was a protest against how western politicians, particularly American ones, treat the Israel/Palestine conflict as a toy.

Something they can play around with for a bit. Then put down when they get bored. All with scant regard for the people who actually live there.

Trump's decision to move the US Embassy to Jerusalem being a prime example of that sort of behaviour.

To that end I don't think the Israeli delegation were planning to win in 2018. Instead they were aiming to finish second.

That would allow them to go back to Israel showing that the backlash against the Embassy move had cost their far superior entry victory.

However the song was written by Doron Medalie. He is famous for writing; "Tel Aviv Ya Habibi (Tel Aviv My Love)." This is the (un)official anthem of Tel Aviv's Gay Pride Parade. It's lyrics mix Hebrew and Arabic together in a gesture of unity and tolerance.

That support for gay-rights and tolerance seems to have tipped Israel into victory. However that was not intended to be an endorsement of Israel. Instead it was intended as a protest by the Song Contest community.

A protest in favour of the tolerate, secular section of Israeli society that loves Tel Aviv and wants Tel Aviv to remain as Israel's capital. A protest against the religious, homophobic, Zionist element of Israeli society which wants to expand Israel to make Jerusalem its capital.

The fact the 2019 Song Contest is taking place in Israel allows the Song Contest community to take that protest into the heart of Israel.

Not only are Israelis being forced to see this protest they are also being forced to pay for it.

In doing this I'm a bit worried the Song Contest community might have bitten off more than it can chew.

The Israel/Palestine Conflict has been fought day-in, day-out since at least 1948. It is really one war in which there have been numerous, large battles. As a result it is not something that can be fitted easily into a handy tourist guide.

Whatever you may feel about it the current, official, legal situation is that there is just one nation. Israel.

A narrow majority of Israel's population are Jewish. Those of a Nazi bent consider Jewishness to be an ethnic group. However it is a religious group. Amongst Israel's Jewish population there are actually a variety of ethnic groups.

The largest ethnic group in Israel are Mizrahi Jews. These are Arab or Middle-Eastern Jews, local to the area around Israel. Most Israeli Jews are now native born within Israel. Meaning the majority of them are Mizrahi Jews.

Another sizable ethnic group are Ashkenazi Jews. These are northern European Jews, predominately for Eastern Europe. Mainly Russia, now the exit visas have come through.

Then there are the Sephardi Jews. These are Hispanic Jews, predominately from the area around Spain, Portugal and the wider Iberian Peninsula.

You also get much smaller groups such as Bukaharan Jews who are from Central Asia, Cochin Jews who come from India.

One group that will surprise many, including other Israeli Jews,  are the Abayuda and Falashim Jews. They are from sub-Saharan, East Africa. In short they are Black.

A narrow minority of Israelis are Arab. That is an ethnic rather than a religious group. Although the majority of them are Muslim Israeli Arabs actually follow a variety of religions including Christianity and the Druze religion.

Israel's Arab population also includes the Bedouin. They are neither an ethnic group nor a religious one. They tend to be both Arab and Muslim.

However the Bedouin are considered distinct because of their lifestyle. They are nomadic arable and livestock farmers. Although they have no real link to European Gypsies they do follow a similar lifestyle.

Within the nation of Israel some of the Arab population live in two semi-autonomous regions. The West Bank, to the east which borders Jordan and the Gaza Strip. Which sits to the south-west, bordering Egypt and the Mediterranean Sea.

The solution to the Israel/Palestine Conflict that has long been supported by the international community is known as the Two State Solution.

This involves turning those two semi-autonomous regions into a nation state. Creating the nation state of Israel and, next to it, the nation state of Palestine.

Under the Two State Solution the city of Jerusalem has Corpus Separatum or "Separated Body" status. Meaning that it is neither part of Israel nor part of Palestine. A solution which is guaranteed to offend Israel's Jews and Arabs equally.

Despite the supposed support of the international community the Two State Solution has yet to materialise.

From here on in though I will be referring to Gaza and the West Bank as; "Palestine" and the Arabs who live there as; "Palestinians."

When it comes to Arabs living outside of Gaza or the West Bank the question of identity is much more complicated. Many of them actually don't want to leave Israel to go and live in the nation of Palestine. The Druze for example.

So I will continue to refer to that group of people as; "Israeli Arabs" or "Arab Israelis."

Since the 1979 Islamic Revolution one of the single largest supporters of the Palestinian people has been Iran. That is despite Iranians generally belonging to the Persian ethnic group rather than being Arab themselves.

As an outsider I often think that culturally Israeli Jews and Iranians have much more in common than either side would like to admit.

They would both certainly fit right in at the Eurovision Song Contest. They both seem to rigidly and voluntarily stick to the Song Contest's "No Overt Politics" rule. In all aspects of their lives.

Within Israeli society the example I often point at to illustrate this is the issue of public transport on Shabbat. The Jewish Sabbath.

Jewish religious law forbids any form of work on the Sabbath. As the influence of religious parties have grown in Israeli politics this has led to secular laws banning people from working on the Sabbath. Meaning that public transport does not operate in Israel on the Sabbath.

This is obviously extremely annoying if you are Israeli but not Jewish. Or if you are Jewish but not particularly religious and just want to catch a bus on a Saturday.

So you would think that people in Israel would protest demanding public transport be allowed to operate on the Sabbath.

That though would be too overtly political.

So instead the protest about government ministers being allowed to use chauffeur driven cars on the Sabbath. They even protested about Jewish convert Ivanka Trump being allowed to ride in a limousine to President Trump's inauguration. Which took place on the Sabbath.

In a small victory for that section of Israeli society the Song Contest has forced Israel to issue some 2,000 permits allowing people to work on the Sabbath. Meaning that, in Tel Aviv at least, public transport will operate on Shabbat.

Iranians speak Farsi rather than Arabic. Farsi is a naturally very poetic language which relies heavily on metaphor and simile. So I don't think that at any point in the history of the world any Iranian has ever said exactly what they mean.

For example when Iranians chant; "Death to America" they're not literally threatening to kill Americans. In much the same way the phrase; "F*ck You" is rarely used to mean; "I find you very attractive and would like to have sex with you." 

Between Iran and Israel Iran's support for Palestine is discussed in terms of Iran's Nuclear Program. The one thing you can be certain of with that is neither side are actually talking about Iran's nuclear program.

In 2008 Barack Obama became US President. He was immediately awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for apparently no reason whatsoever. Obama took this Nobel award as a sign that it was he who would finally bring peace between Israel and Palestine.

Unfortunately President Obama didn't want to do any of the work.

So instead he set about shutting down the discussions between Iran and Israel. By imposing tough sanction on Iran over its actual nuclear program. The lifting of those sanctions under the so-called Iran Nuclear Deal (JCPOA) was President Obama being forced to admit that he'd made a horrible mistake.

Apparently the Israel/Palestine Conflict is not an executive toy for American Presidents.

Although it was utterly beyond Eurovision's control the First Semi-Final in 2017 actually began with President Trump announcing he was ripping up JCPOA and reintroducing Obama's sanctions.

That was immediately followed by Israel launching the largest wave of airstrikes against Syria since 1974. Which seemed to be Israel smacking Trump around the head for repeating Obama's mistakes.

I think you can see why I'm taking the Eurovision Song Contest very seriously this year.

President Trump's Middle-East policy seems to be entirely dictated by Saudi Arabia rather than Israel. As Azerbaijan seem well aware.

In supporting the Palestinians Iran is aided by its longtime ally and Israel's neighbour Syria. This is another thing which former President Obama found far too complicated to learn about in his efforts to solve the Israel/Palestine Conflict.

So following some very insane advice Obama decided to help create the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and associated groups to overthrow the Syrian government. In order to remove the complex alliance between Iran, Syria and Palestine.

ISIL are amongst the absolute worse humanity has ever seen. Sadly they are not even the worst group in the Syria conflict. The Army of Islam/Jaish al-Islam who are often referred to as; "The Moderate Opposition" consider ISIL too moderate and have murdered ISIL members accordingly.

Obviously Israel does not want that on its border. Nobody does.

However Israel joining the war directly would only make ISIL and its associates stronger. So instead Israel is being forced to play out this complex strategy of relying on its enemy Iran to defeat its other enemies, ISIL and associates. While making sure that its enemy Iran doesn't become even stronger.

This situation is so astonishingly complex that no-one involved, Israel, Iran, Syria etc, has the energy or "bandwidth" to deal with anything else.

So far from helping the Palestinians former President Obama, and his insane advisors, have caused the Israel/Palestine Conflict to become the Middle-East's forgotten war.

Although it is probably what Israel is most famous for you'd be surprised how little the Israel/Palestine Conflict comes up in Israel's day-to-day politics.

Israel has famously walled off the West Bank. It has also built a similar security barrier around Gaza. So with the exception of periodic rocket fire into the farmland around Gaza many Israelis are able to completely ignore the conflict as they go about their everyday lives.

On the rare occasions the conflict does make an appearance in Israeli politics it is normally only people complaining about the compulsory military service it requires. Or the religious, Zionist parties demanding permission to annex more of the West Bank.

The rest of the time Israeli politics is dominated by the sort of issues that dominate in most normal countries. The economy and the competence of the government in providing public services.

While everyone has been distracted the situation in Palestine has continued to deteriorate. Particulary in Gaza.

Although it is hard to pick just one issue Gaza's main problem is a lack of electricity. This is making it impossible to provide the essentials for human survival.

Things like powering water pumps at desalination plants needed to produce drinking water from sea water. Or powering sewage treatment facilities needed to make human waste safe.

Tel Aviv is known as; "The White City." In reference to the beauty of its white sandy beaches. Just a few kilometres down the coast Gaza's beaches are covered in raw sewage and human waste. To be blunt, Sh*t.

As for healthcare in Gaza you can pretty much forget about it. Without electricity Gaza's hospitals can't even provide the basics. If you suffer an injury to your arms or legs all Gaza's doctors can do is amputate. They won't even be able to provide you with prosthetic limbs or after care.

Without electricity almost all economic activity in Gaza has stopped. A full 50% of the population are unemployed and those who are employed rarely get paid on time or to the full amount.

In March 2018 Palestinians in Gaza started the Great March of Return protests on Friday afternoons. Now in their second year these protests see Palestinian civilians march up to the border fence between Gaza and Israel where they are, more often than not, shot at by the Israeli security forces.

If you've been following the Israel/Palestine Conflict you will have become used to the Israeli security forces killing Palestinian civilians out of little more than racism. You will also have become used to Palestinian militants strapping on suicide bombs to kill Israelis and die as Martyrs for their cause.

You will certainly have become used to civilians on all sides being torn apart in the crossfire. The innocent collateral damage of war.

The March of Return protests have introduced something new, and even darker.

Gaza's protesters are not under any illusion that the Israeli security forces will shoot them and likely kill them. They're not though preparing to die as Martyrs, killing as many Jews as possible in their attack.

Instead now Palestinians are prepared to die because they simply cannot bear to live in Gaza anymore.

It is the phenomenon of "Suicide-by-Cop." Only on a society wide scale.

That is something which should frighten everyone.

Protest groups such as Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) often claim that the situation in Gaza is entirely Israel's fault. The result of a blockade of Gaza Israel introduced in 2007.

That is not quite true. Israel did impose of blockade of Gaza in 2007. However the ended it in 2013. On an extremely technical level Israel does not currently impose a blockade of Gaza.

What Israel does do is restrict, by placing quotas on, certain goods entering Gaza. These are goods which Israel argues threatens the health of its citizens. Construction materials which can be used to build military bunkers and attack tunnels being a prime example.

Admittedly, unless you are an international trade lawyer, it can be quite hard to tell how this is different from an Israeli blockade of Gaza. Particularly as Israel is constantly, and seemingly randomly, changing the restrictions and quotas. In an effort to make the whole process as difficult as possible.

However the main driver of the current situation is a long-running dispute between Palestine's two main political parties. Fatah and Hamas.

Fatah control the West Bank. Officially they are a secular party with no religious affiliation.

Although even they seem to have forgotten it Fatah were originally founded as a Revolutionary Socialist party. Part of the Cold War Arc of Resistance which also included the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) and the Irish Republican Socialist Party/Irish National Liberation Army (IRSP/INLA).

As a result there has always been a high level of solidarity between Palestinians and Irish Republicans. The Republic of Ireland delegation has come under particular pressure to withdraw from the Song Contest this year. Although, after last year, that doesn't seem to be their main worry.

Hamas control Gaza. They are an Islamist party. Meaning that they wish to create Palestine as a Muslim state run in accordance with Sharia law. It must be said though that compared to other Muslim states run in accordance with Sharia law in the region Hamas are actually extremely moderate.

Hamas' name presents an interesting talking point about the power of language. The acronym HAMAS is similar to a Hebrew word meaning to crush or violently oppress. As in you would hamas a bug. Convincing native Hebrew speakers to accept Hamas is the probably hardest thing in the world.

Regardless of the political party the governing body for Palestine is the Palestinian Authority. In 2006 elections were held for the Palestinian Authority. These were won by Hamas.

Neither Fatah nor Israel were prepared to accept that. So Fatah refused to cede control of the Palestinian Authority and Israel imposed the 2007 blockade.

In June 2007 Hamas and Fatah fought a short civil war for control of Gaza. This saw Hamas take control, in line with the election result, and Fatah forced out. Since then a seriously weakened Fatah have been trying to destroy Hamas from the West Bank.

Technically Gaza and the West Bank are semi-autonomous regions within the nation of Israel. As a result the economic relationship between Israel and Palestine is extremely complicated.

Basically though Israel has responsibility for collecting Palestine's tax revenues. Things like import/export duties and the payroll/income taxes of Palestinians who work in Israel. Israel then passes that money to the Palestinian Authority which has responsibility for disbursing it throughout Palestine.

Despite losing the election Fatah still control the Palestinian Authority. In their efforts to destroy Hamas Fatah have simply stopped disbursing money to Gaza.

This means that public sector workers in Gaza either do not get paid at all or get paid late and less than the full amount. With the public sector being the largest employer in Gaza this effectively starved the region of cash, shutting down all economic activity.

Gaza's electricity crisis is also largely Fatah's doing.

The Palestinian Authority has responsibility to negotiating and paying for the roughly 125MW of electricity Gaza imports from Israel. Giving them complete control over it.

In April 2017 the Fatah controlled Palestinian Authority decided it was simply not going to pay Gaza's electricity bill. As they would with any other debtor the Israeli electricity companies then cut off Gaza's electricity supply over non-payment of bills.

That left Gaza entirely dependent on its one diesel-fired power station. Which only produces around 60MW. On the rare occasions that Israel and the Fatah controlled Palestinian Authority allow it to be supplied with fuel.

Israel of course is very happy with this conflict between Hamas and Fatah. And frequently put pressure on Fatah to keep it going.

After all it allows Israel to see Palestinians suffer.

While being able to legitimately claim that they are not the ones putting Gaza under a blockade.

11:35 on 14/5/19 (UK date)

Eurovision 2019: The Call to Boycott.

The 2019 Eurovision Song Contest opens on Sunday, May 12th (12/5/19). With the traditional opening gala.

The First Semi-Final takes place on Tuesday, May 14th (14/5/19).

The Second Semi-Final takes place on Thursday, May 16th (16/5/19).

This all leads up to the Grand Finale. On Saturday, May 18th (18/5/19).

You can familiarise yourself with this year's competitors on the Eurovision website; https://eurovision.tv

However this year's Song Contest takes place in Israel. Prompting calls for the event to be boycotted.

In protest against Israel's conflict with Palestine. Along with Israel's treatment of its own Arab, Bedouin, Druze and basically anyone who's not Jewish population.

I cannot support those calls for a boycott.

Hosting the Eurovision Song Contest is not solely a prestige event. Like, say, Israel hosting the Argentinean football team in a World Cup friendly.

In fact, due to the cost, many nations view being forced to host the Song Contest more as a punishment than a reward.

Wherever it is held the Eurovision Song Contest is organised by the European Broadcasting Union (EBU). This was founded in the aftermath of the Second World War. It's purpose is to bring nations together to advance broadcasting technology.

The specific purpose of the Song Contest is to provide nations with a forum to raise any political issues or disputes it has with other nations. In order to resolve those disputes through dialogue. Rather than the conflict which had torn the continent apart.

So nobody is ever excluded from the Song Contest. Everybody is always invited and included.

If only so you can spend the entire week insulting those people to their faces. Provided you do it in a creative and not overtly political way.

At its founding the EBU included not just Israel but also many of its Arab neighbours. Such Egypt, Syria and Lebanon. However those nations went on to chose to exclude themselves. In protest at Israel's inclusion.

Boycotting the 2019 Eurovision Song Contest would be particularly ill advised. Due to how Israel came to host the contest this year.

As is the tradition Israel are hosting the Song Contest this year because they won the 2018 Song Contest.

The 2018 Song Contest was something of a subdued affair. Big on introspection and light of the traditional flamboyance and energy.

The reason for this was a series of mistakes made by the Song Contest community in previous years.

In 2016 Ukraine was crowned winner. Meaning they hosted the 2017 Song Contest.

This was intended as a poorly judged endorsement of Ukraine's racist and homophobic Nazi and Neo-Nazi militias. It was also an endorsement of Ukraine's entry that year breaking the competition's Golden Rule. Songs can't be overtly political.

Preparations for the 2017 Song Contest were fraught with problems.

Due to the newly emboldened Nazi and Neo-Nazi militias Ukraine was, and continues to be, in the grips of a vicious, ethnic Civil War. This created a security nightmare.

With the country awash with heavy, battlefield weapons any random drunk with a grudge could launch a major attack against the Song Contest.

Ukraine's corrupt government then privatised the country's national broadcaster UA:PBC. The Song Contest's host broadcaster. They did this thinking the EBU would then pour money into UA:PBC. And by extension their own, corrupt pockets.

When this didn't happen Ukraine's government then fired UA:PBC's Song Contest organising committee. Creating a real risk there would not be a host broadcaster to broadcast the Song Contest.

Then Ukraine's Nazi and Neo-Nazi militias blocked coal imports to the country. Triggering an energy crisis across the country. Creating a very real risk there wouldn't be electricity to power, let alone broadcast the Song Contest.

Finally Ukraine did the unthinkable. They excluded Russia's entry. Not just from the Song Contest but from the country itself.

No doubt worried that Russia would humiliatingly be crowned winner. As punishment for Ukraine's bad behaviour.

Amid the chaos of this "Spring Time For Hitler" the Song Contest community ended up crowning Portugal the 2017 winner. Meaning they would host the 2018 Song Contest.

That's despite Portugal's 2017 entry being little more than a plea that they're not forced to host the 2018 Song Contest. Still emerging from an economic collapse they didn't think they could afford it.

All this meant that at the 2018 Song Contest there was a distinct shortage of strong, enthusiastic entries. Everyone was focused on introspection and the question of how they all had got it all so wrong in previous years.

The exception was Israel. They had a big issue of their own that needed to be discussed.

In December 2017 US President Trump announced that America was moving its Embassy to Israel to Jerusalem. In effect recognising it, rather than Tel Aviv, as Israel's capital.

This announcement triggered universal condemnation. Including only the 11th time in history that the UN General Assembly has overturned a veto by the UN Security Council. In order to endorse a resolution condemning the move.

Amongst the Song Contest community the joke was that following that controversy Israel would have to go big in 2018.

Israel did just that. Literally. At the 2018 Song Contest they were represented by Netta Barzilai. Who is somewhat larger than your typical female popstar.

That alone triggered a debate about the way women are treated in the entertainment industry. A particularly relevant discussion in the post-Weinstein, #MeToo era.

If there was one main message to Israel's 2018 song; "Toy" it was a protest.

A protest against the way western politicians, particularly American ones, treat the Israel/Palestine conflict as a toy.

Something they can play around with for a bit. Then put down when they get bored. All with scant regard for the people who actually live there.

Trump's decision to move the US Embassy to Jerusalem being a prime example of that sort of behaviour.

At the Eurovision Song Contest the Israeli delegation actually have long history of being extremely critical of Israel. Particularly of its right-wing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his even more Zionist allies.

January 2015 saw the Ile-de-France attacks. Including the Charlie Hebdo attack and the attack on the Hypercacher Kosher Supermarket.

This occurred in the middle of an Israeli election campaign. So Prime Minister Netanyahu travelled to France to transport the four Jewish victims for burial in Israel.

During this visit Prime Minister Netanyahu urged France's Jews to emigrate to Israel, to help expand the nation into Palestinian territory. Rather laughably claiming that Israel is the one place that Jews are safe from terrorism.

The Israeli Eurovision delegation's response to this was; "Golden Boy" by Nadav Guedj. A French born Israeli Jew.

The main message of the song was mocking Prime Minister Netanyahu's claim to be the Golden Boy of the Jewish people. The self-appointed leader of God's Chosen People.

Since then Israel and France have been locked in something of a bitter bilateral feud at the Song Contest.

In 2016 the Israeli Ministry of Tourism launched its "One Country: Two Cities" campaign. This billed Israel as a tourism destination which allowed visitors to visit both Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. An attempt to boost Israel's claim over Jerusalem.

The Israeli Eurovision delegation's response to this was; "I Feel Alive" by IMRI. The video openly mocked the "One Country: Two Cities" commercials. Making it clear they loved just one city, Tel Aviv and only Tel Aviv.

At the 2018 Song Contest I think the Israelis delegation's plan was to finish second. They could then blame their very strong entry's failure to win on the backlash of protest over the US Embassy being moved to Jerusalem.

In hosting the 2019 Song Contest they seem to be acknowledging this. If Netta had been defeated in 2018 she would have lost to Cyprus' Eleni Foureira with "Feugo." Eleni Foureira has been invited to perform at the 2019 Song Contest as a special guest.

I think what tipped Israel's 2018 entry into victory is that it was written by Doron Medalie. He is famous for writing; "Tel Aviv Ya Habibi (Tel Aviv My Love)." This is the official anthem of Tel Aviv's Gay Pride Parade. It's lyrics mix Hebrew and Arabic together, in harmony.

So Israel's 2018 Eurovision Song Contest victory was a celebration of the peaceful, tolerant and inclusive element of Israeli society.

And protest against the intolerant, Zionist, expansionist element of Israel society which wants to make Jerusalem its capital.

It is a protest the Song Contest community is now taking right into Israel's house.

At around 17:55 on 5/5/19 (UK date) I'll pick this up later.

Edited at around 17:05 on 6/5/19 (UK date) to copy & paste from another tab;

The Eurovision Song Contest regularly attracts around 200 million viewers. Israel has a population of around 8 million people.

So from the moment it was announced they would be hosting the Song Contest in 2019 Eurovision has cast a dark shadow over Israeli society.

There was the initial issue over which city would host the event. Tel Aviv or Jerusalem.

Israeli Zionists initially wanted it to be held in Jerusalem. In order to further strengthen their claim over the city.

However they soon realised that the Grand Finale would take place on a Saturday. The Jewish Sabbath.

Meaning if they wanted to use the Song Contest to boost the supposedly religious claim of Jerusalem being the capital of the Jewish state they would have to break the much better established religious rule against working on the Sabbath.

Eurovision did not agree to reschedule the event around the Jewish Sabbath. Meaning that Israel was forced to agree to hold it in Tel Aviv.

Israel has long operated extremely strict immigration controls. Denying entry to the country to anyone they deem to be a threat.

Through the emergence of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign this has recently become even more strict. Israel now not only denies entry to anyone who presents a risk of violence but also anyone who presents of risk of simply criticising Israel. Including many Jews.

What Israeli immigration authorities often do now is conduct an extensive search of visitors social media accounts. If they find any hint of support for BDS, even liking a Tweet or Facebook post, that person is refused entry to the country.

Eurovision has forced Israel to agree that this policy will not apply to people visiting Israel for the Song Contest. Including competitors, broadcasters and tourists.

As such a high profile event the Song Contest presents a significant security challenge for Israel. It provides a focal point and therefore inviting target in Israel's ongoing war with its Palestinian neighbours.

Although the Song Contest doesn't officially open until May 12th (12/5/19) competitors began arriving towards the end of last week. Ahead of the first rehearsals which began on Saturday (4/5/19).

Something you may have noticed for the welcoming fireworks put on by Palestinian groups in Gaza.

In terms of the actual threat to the Song Contest the risk is much lower than it was in Ukraine in 2017.

Although there are a lot of weapons on both sides of the Israel/Palestine conflict they are in the hands of organised armed groups, with clear command structures. In Ukraine those weapons were widely available to just about anyone. Making any possible attack much harder to predict and therefore prevent.

The security challenge presented by the Song Contest is that the Israel/Palestine conflict has been going on since 1948. It will likely go on for long after the Song Contest has moved on. That means that any security measures taken, or even discussed, have to be considered in terms of their impact on the wider conflict.

However I think it is safe to say that there are two main armed groups operating in Gaza. Hamas and Islamic Jihad.

Both Hamas and Islamic Jihad were formed by the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. However by 2017 Hamas had become appalled by the extremism of the Muslim Brotherhood and broke off ties with the group. Instead strengthening its alliance with Iran.

Islamic Jihad remained loyal to the Muslim Brotherhood. This has turned Gaza into something of a proxy for the war on Israel's other border - Syria. In Syria the Muslim Brotherhood nations of Qatar and Turkey are backing ISIL and Al Qaeda to overthrow the Syrian government which, like Hamas, is allied to Iran.

This past weekend's round of violence actually began last Sunday (28/4/19).

Islamic Jihad fired a rocket into the sea off the coast of Israel. Although they didn't come close to hitting it this rocket was aimed at Israel's offshore Tamar natural gas field. It marked the start of a week in which Turkey began illegally conducting offshore gas exploration off the coast of Cyprus.

The dispute between Greece, Turkey and Cyprus over Cyprus is the stuff of Song Contest legend. Or at least it used to be. Until Turkish President/Prime Minister/Emperor Recep Tayyip Erdogan started boycotting the Song Contest.

Erdogan's ego is far too fragile to tolerate any form of criticism. Even the creative and not overtly political sort.

In response to that Islamic Jihad rocket Israel stopped fishermen in Gaza from going out in their boats. With fishing being one of the few industries still functioning in Gaza this massively increased anger at the Friday "March of Return" protests which have been taking place for more than a year now.

At Friday's (3/5/19) protest Islamic Jihad gunmen opened fire. Wounding two Israeli soldiers. This prompted Israel to conduct airstrikes against Hamas positions in Gaza. In response both Hamas and Islamic Jihad started firing rockets into Israel on Saturday (4/5/19).

By the time a ceasefire was reached early this morning (6/5/19) some 600 rockets had been fired into Israel and Israel had conducted some 300 airstrikes, often involving rockets, in Gaza.

This strikes me as a very unwise strategy for the Palestinians to undertake during the Song Contest.

The people who are participate in the Song Contest tend to be extremely sensitive, highly strung creative types. Unlike the populations of Israel and Palestine they are not used to coming under air raids. Although none of this past weekend's action has really come anywhere near Tel Aviv they all seem pretty terrified by this new experience for them.

It's likely that this fear will mean they'll leave Israel being extremely sympathetic to the poor Israelis who have to live under the constant threat of rocket attack. And much less sympathetic to the Palestinians who keep firing all the rockets.

As I've said Israel participates in the Song Contest because it is a member of the EBU. The specific Israeli organisation which is a member of the EBU is the Israeli Public Broadcasting Corporation known as; "Kan."

Frustrated by unfavourable coverage Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu has long been at war with Kan. In 2018 he ordered the broadcaster to be broken up into two separate organisations. One providing entertainment content and another providing news coverage. Likely operated by his loyal friend Shaul Elovitch.

However in order to be a member of the EBU a broadcaster must be a public service broadcaster. Providing both entertainment content and news coverage. So in order for the 2019 Song Contest to go ahead Prime Minister Netanyahu has been forced to delay his plans to break-up Kan.

In what seems like a retaliation the Israeli government has refused to provide state funding for the Song Contest. Which is what typically happens. Instead Kan has been forced to take out loans to meet the cost of the Song Contest. Loans which may bankrupt the company.

At around 17:15 on 6/5/19 (UK date) I really don't know where I'll find the time to finish this up.

Edited at around 12:10 on 11/5/19 (UK date) to tidy up and copy & paste from another tab;

I think Israel's attitude towards hosting the Eurovision Song Contest can be summed up by the recent spy drama; "Douze Points." Broadcast on the Kan network.

This sees a gay Arab terrorist infiltrate a nation's Song Contest delegation. In order to carry out a terror attack during the Grand Finale.

I've not seen the show. However it seems like an attempt to subtly implant, in the minds of the Israeli public, that Eurovision is an Arab plot against and threat to them.

Funnily enough Israelis have hardly been queuing to snap up tickets to the Song Contest.

The nation whose Song Contest delegation is infiltrated is France. Playing on the recent Eurovision spat between France and Israel over rising anti-Semitism in France driving French Jews to migrate to Israel. Something Prime Minister Netanyahu was keen to exploit during the 2015 election campaign.

Being unaware of the TV show "Douze Points" the French public have selected a gay Arab to represent them at the 2019 Song Contest. Against the advice of France's professional jury who were aware of the TV show.

At the 2019 Song Contest Italy will also be represented by an Arab. So while sections of Israeli society might be trying to exclude Arabs the Song Contest community is working to make sure they are centre stage.

The Italian entry is sung in a mixture of Italian and Arabic. However English subtitles are provided on giant screens as part of the performance. I'm sure I don't need to remind veterans of the 2016 Song Contest, about the integration of Arab populations, of the significance of subtitles.

I honestly think that the Song Contest was a factor in Israel calling its recent, early election. An attempt to throw pressure back on the Song Contest community by forcing it to attempt to untangle Israel's borderline insane internal politics.

After all traditionally when it announces the result Israel's election commission doesn't announce Israel's next government. It simply announces the start of about a month of intense, barely comprehensible bartering and horse trading between Israel's political parties over who will form the next coalition.

In the run up to the election and to the Song Contest I've noticed that Israel's massively leftwing and massively pro-Palestinian English language newspaper Haaretz have tightened the paywall on its website. Making it that much harder for outsiders to try and untangle Israel's complex internal politics.

So if you are planning to boycott the 2019 Eurovision Song Contest.

Then you are planning to boycott one of the largest protests against Israel seen in recent years.


12:25 on 11/5/19 (UK date).

An Abomination Beyond Comprehension V (Draft)

Sub-titled: "Operation Featherweight: Month 58, Week 5, Day 1."

A direct continuation of Part 4; https://watchitdie.blogspot.com/2019/04/an-abomination-beyond-comprehension-iv.html

In that post I laid out how the expected punishment for captured ISIL members should be the death penalty. Provided they are found to be Unlawful Combatants by a Competent Military Tribunal.

This will no doubt prompt people to ask how that is different from ISIL's practice of killing hostages.

ISIL have normally attempted to justify killing hostages by using the concept of; "Takfir" or, strictly speaking; "Mukaffir." This involves a person being declared to be a non-Muslim and then punished.

This use of a declaration of Takfir is one particular area where ISIL have firmly broken away from Islam.

There is absolutely no mention of the concept of Takfir in either the Qu'ran or the Hadith.

Followers of Whabbist Islam believe that it was introduced by the first Caliph, Abdallah bin Abi Quhafah (Abu Bakr). However he never used the term and that claim is widely disputed.

The concept of Takfir is actually a 20th Century invention. Created by the Egyptian Sayyid Qutb of the Muslim Brotherhood in the 1950's.

Of the Muslims who believe Takfir to be an Islamic concept many think that it is a declaration that can only be made by God or his Prophet Mohammad through divine intervention.

Of those who think it can be adjudged by humans none think that it is a decision which can be made unilaterally. Instead it is a decision which can only be made collectively through the agreement of the wider community.

Before even the wider community can declare an individual Takfir it must first put its allegations to that person. They are then given the opportunity to respond and put forward their defence.

A declaration of Takfir is similar to a declaration of excommunication by the Catholic Church.

The punishment is normally only the shunning of an individual and denying them Muslim rites such as burial. Predominately it is nothing more than a rhetorical device. A way to discredit someone's argument.

It is almost unheard of for a declaration of Takfir to result in someone being executed. That punishment is only used for the most serious of crimes. Such as attempting to kill a large number of Muslims.

One of the World's oldest and respected institutions of Islamic theology is the Al-Azhar Mosque and University in Egypt.

In 2015 they published an open-letter utterly destroying ISIL's claim that its ideology was Islamic. Al-Azhar particularly focused on ISIL's use of a declaration of Takfir to execute people.

Pointedly Al-Azhar ended their letter by refusing to declare ISIL to be Takfir. Until such a time as ISIL were given the opportunity to defend themselves from the allegations.

The decision to execute any captured ISIL member is not one that will be taken lightly. Nor one that will be taken unilaterally.

Instead it will be taken collectively through the global community.

In the sense that the UN has empowered CJTFOIR to establish Military Tribunals. By agreeing the rules of those Military Tribunals CJTFOIR will empower a panel of three to decide guilt or innocence of each individual ISIL member. In accordance with the agreed rules.

You would be extremely foolish to think there are not Muslims serving as officers in either the American or British military. There are certainly Muslims serving as officers in the militaries of CJTFOIR nations such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and the United Arab Emirates.

Personally I would very much like to see the third member of the Tribunal panel being made up of a civilian from the local community. In line with a person of enlisted rank being entitled to insist that the third member of the panel is also of enlisted rank.

That though may be difficult. The law requires that the Tribunal must be conducted in line with the existing rules used by the Convening Authority to discipline its own personnel. Including a civilian on a Military Tribunal is a substantive divergence from the existing rules.

However I think it should be allowed. It is a change which is certainly keeping with the spirit, if not the letter of the existing rules. It is also a change primarily for the benefit of the accused. Allowing the Tribunal to better able to see the situation from their perspective.

During these Tribunals the accused will be provided with opportunity to answer the allegations against them. They will also be afforded an advocate to assist them in putting forward their defence.

If these Tribunals do result in executions then the manner of those executions will be extremely different from the executions carried out by ISIL.

Firstly they will be conducted as humanely as possible. Meaning they will be carried out by either hanging or firing squad. Nobody is going to have their heads sawn off by a bayonet. No-one is going to be burnt alive and no-one is going to be thrown from a tall building.

They will also be conducted in private. That is to say they may be attended by specific parties to the case. Such as members of the Convening Authority to check the sentence is being carried out or individual victims of the person being executed.

Without prejudice to the specific case there is one ISIL member in captivity. Martin Lemke. It is alleged that he was captured whilst in possession of a Yezidi woman who he and his wife had been holding as a slave. If Lemke is to be executed then that Yezidi woman would be allowed to attend his execution. If she so wishes.

The executions may even be video recorded or photographed. However only to show that the sentence is being carried out and is being carried out in as humane as way as possible. Without causing unnecessary suffering to the executed person.

Any video recordings or photographs will not be made public for propaganda purposes. The relatives to those executed will not be forced to watch the deaths of their loved ones played on an endless loop on the TV news and on the Internet. As ISIL did to the relatives of the people it killed.

Despite this some people will still attempt to argue that executing people simply for being members of ISIL is Collective Punishment.

It's not.

Collective Punishment is when someone from a certain village commits a crime. So you imprison or kill 10 random people from that village as punishment. Or when someone of a certain religious/ethnic commits a crime. So you imprison or kill 10 random members of that religious/ethnic group as punishment.

Collective Punishment itself is a War Crime. If the punishment involves the killing or inhumane treatment of a certain religious/ethnic group it may well constitute a Crime Against Humanity.

In punishing members of ISIL we are not punishing them because of where they live or because of what religion they follow.

We are punishing them for their individual choice to join ISIL in the knowledge that their support would allow ISIL to carry out War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity.

As I've said the expected punishment for captured ISIL members should be death.

However because we are punishing each individual's choice to join ISIL in setting each individual punishment we can consider the extent of each individual's choice. Essentially the extent of their commitment to ISIL.

Much of this discussion has been dominated by foreign ISIL members. Such as Shamima Begum, Martin Lemke and Lisa Smith.

The SDF have their own, much smaller International Brigade.

If you still do not understand the horrors of war a legend amongst the SDF's International Brigade was Kevin Howard. He committed suicide on Tuesday (30/4/19). Having returned to the US after serving possibly one of the longest tours of duty in Syria than any other member of the International Brigade.

Me constantly praising the SDF's International Brigade really raises the question of why I'm not out there fighting alongside them.

There are really a host of reasons. It's the long post I never seem to get time to write.

However one of the main reasons is that it's always been that people should only travel to join the International Brigade if they have some special skill to contribute to the SDF. Howard was a former US Marine Sniper.

The special skill I bring is really this. Being a bit of a loudmouth on the Internet.

If I were to travel to Syria I would probably spend my entire time sitting behind a computer in somewhere like Derik/Al-Malikiyah. Which throughout the war has been about as dangerous as London, Britain. Where it's actually easier for me to do my job from.

Another significant reason is how difficult it is to travel to Syria. Even in Gaziantep, Turkey you don't just hail a late-night Uber and suddenly end up in Raqqa.

So I probably know more than most how much planning, effort and expense has gone into these foreign ISIL members travelling to Syria to join the group.

This isn't a momentary lapse of judgement on their part. It's an extensively pre-mediated act which has required significant malice and aforethought.

Also this might be the first time that western journalists have started to wonder about what to do with captured members of ISIL. For those involved in the war it is certainly not the first time the question has come up.

It came up throughout the Battle of Mosul in the winter of 2016 through to the summer of 2017. When many members of ISIL were either captured, surrendered or chose to flee the group.

It also came up throughout the SDF's Wrath of Euphrates operation. Also in the winter of 2016 through to the spring of 2017. When many members of ISIL were either captured, surrendered or chose to flee the group.

It definitely came up during the Battle of Raqqa City in the autumn of 2017. When ISIL lost their de facto capital and very large numbers of their members were either captured, surrendered or chose to flee the group.

It came up constantly during the SDF's Cizre Storm operation throughout 2018. In which the group established the Shangri-La area by pushing down towards the Syria/Iraq border. When many members of ISIL were either captured, surrendered or chose to flee the group.

The people who've been captured during this recent Battle of the Hajin Pocket are the ISIL members who had the choice to surrender or flee the group during the Battle of Mosul. They're the ones who had the choice to surrender or flee the group during the Wrath of Euphrates operation.

They're the ISIL members who had the choice to surrender or flee the group during the Battle of Raqqa City. They're the ones who had the choice to surrender or flee the group during the Cizre Storm operation.

Every time these ISIL members were handed the opportunity to surrender or flee the group they chose not to. Instead they chose to retreat and fight on. Time and time again.

As such their commitment to ISIL and its heinous crimes is substantial. It is something they have reasserted time and time again.

Not only are these captured ISIL members the most committed to the group they also seem to be the highest ranking members of the group. Responsible for planning and carrying out the worst of ISIL's crimes.

For example when Martin Lemke was captured his wife claimed he was only a technician for the group. However he is an individual people have been tracking for a while. They think that he is a senior member of ISIL's Emni intelligence unit. A Gestapo-style political police responsible for murder of prisoners such as Lt al-Kasabeh.

Shamima Begum claims that she was just housewife. Again though she's an individual people have been tracking for a while. They think that she is a senior member of ISIL's al-Khansaa Brigade. The female equivalent of the Emni unit. Of which her husband Yago Riedijk is believed to be a member.

The senior ISIL members killed during the Battle of the Hajin Pocket include Mohammad Mamoud al-Abadi (Abu Osama al-Qurushi), ISIL's minister of oil and head of the Hisba religious police. Also Motaz al-Badri and Abu Hafas. Two of ISIL leader al-Baghdadi's favourite sons.

What has been much more overlooked is the captured members of ISIL who are local to Syria and Iraq. I appreciate their commitment to the group may be much less than the foreign members of ISIL who grab all the headlines.

I appreciate how it might have been easy to get swept up in the excitement of ISIL coming to town, promising to make like better. Only to discover much later on the horrors the group had planned. I also appreciate that it's not much of a choice to work for ISIL if ISIL's the only work in town.

I certainly appreciate that ISIL are not big on consent. The choice to join ISIL or die certainly represents the mitigation of duress in any legal system I'm familiar with.

Frustratingly at around 20:10 on 2/5/19 (UK date) I'm going to how to address how to deal with those captured members of ISIL at a later date.

Edited at around 15:20 on 6/5/19 (UK date) to copy & paste from another tab;

In light of these mitigating factors it should be possible to significantly vary the punishment from the expected death penalty.

For many of the lowest ranking, least committed, local members I'm thinking in terms of no further punishment whatsoever.

In Iraq a system has been used which is similar to the Conditional Discharge punishment used in the British civilian legal system.

This involves the accused being found guilty of the offence. Then being told by the Court/Tribunal that what they have done is wrong and they are not to do it again. They are then released with no other punishment then that stern telling off.

However the fact they have been convicted of the offence is kept on record by the police/Courts/state.

If they are arrested for another offence their previous conviction is taken into account in how that new offence is dealt with. For example a convicted ISIL member who goes on to be found in possession of a large cache of weapons should then expect the maximum punishment for that new offence.

The problem with using this system in Syria is that the Shangri-La area lacks a strong police/Courts/state system.

The SDC do an actually impressive job of acting as the government/state. However they do this with the cooperation of the local tribes and ethnic/religious groups.

They're not in the position to impose their will on the local population. In the way that a government/state is expected to do in matters of law.

For example in the summer of 2018 the SDC foolishly attempted to ban the use of the Syriac language for teaching in Shangri-La's schools. This prompted a furious backlash from the Syriac population and the SDC were forced to reverse the ban.

What I hope can be done though is that a system of "Common Law" can be agreed amongst the SDC, the tribes and the ethnic/religious groups within Shangri-La.

Common Law is one of the earliest, founding principles of the English legal system which has been widely copied the World over. It was invented at really the birth of the English legal system in the 11th, 12th and 13th Centuries.

British society at this time was a large part of the inspiration for the TV Show; "Game of Thrones." Although obviously that is not a documentary about British history. There were certainly fewer dragons and not as many branches of Starbucks.

At the time Britain as a single nation didn't actually exist. There was the nation of England and the separate nation of Scotland. The backward, impoverished place north of the wall. The wall built by Roman Emperor Hadrian back in 2nd Century.

England had one King. However it was divided up into different counties. Cumbria, Yorkshire, Lancashire etc.

Each of these counties had their own Duke who acted as something of a regional King. Ruling their county. This system was technically geographic rather than tribal but was very similar to many tribal systems.

Each county had slightly different justice systems and tax systems. However there were certain offences such as murder etc which were the same across all the counties. These laws common to all became known as; "The Common Law."

If the tribes can agree that membership of ISIL is a bad thing, and therefore a common crime, I'm happy for low level, local ISIL members to be returned to their tribe. For monitoring and, if the tribe sees the need, minor punishment.

The exception is if the person has committed a specific crime against another member of the local community. So if there's a victim who can point to an individual and say; "That person burned down my house." Or; "That person killed my brother."

In those cases there will need to be some sort of trial and some sort of punishment.

I'm not really happy though telling the tribes how they should resolve those cases. Instead I think it should be done through the way they usually resolve disputes. Which normally involves the paying some form of compensation.

Obviously though if the tribes do engage in War Crimes, Crimes Against Humanity or other cruel and unusual punishments neither CJTFOIR nor the SDC can hand prisoners over to them. It would make CJTFOIR and the SDC complicit in those crimes.

One possible way of dealing with these specific crimes is by adopting a system similar to the Gacaca Courts used in Rwanda.

Following the 1994 Genocide Rwanda discovered 130,000 people accused of participating. To process them all through the traditional Court system would have taken some 200 years.

So instead Rwanda set up this system of community courts known as Gacaca Courts to deal with those accused of the lowest levels of involvement. The term; "Gacaca" loosely translates as; "To sit amongst the grass" or; "Justice amongst the grass."

The purpose of these community courts is not really to hand out punishments. Instead it is to promote healing and rebuilding amongst the community. By allowing victim's stories to be heard and the truth established.

So a typical hearing will be held in public in front of a senior, trusted member of the community. Such as a tribal leader.

The victim is then allowed to say what the accused has done to them and how it has affected them.

Ideally the accused will then admit what they've done is wrong. Explain exactly what they did and why they thought they could behave like that. Then apologise.

In Rwanda a main purpose of these Gacaca Courts was for the perpetrators to tell relatives of the victims where the bodies of their loved ones had been dumped. Allowing them to be recovered and given a proper burial.

The community court can then impose some sort of community restitution.

So if a person has burned down a home or a Mosque they have to either pay to rebuild that building or work to rebuild it themselves. The same would go for other destroyed property such as vehicles or livestock.

If the community court does encounter a serious crime. Such as organising a massacre or mass rape. Then they would then have to hand the case to one of the SDC's formal law Courts.

Although, ideally those sort of cases would have been dealt with by CJTFOIR long before the accused was released back into the community.


Part six to follow.

15:30 on 6/5/19 (UK date).

An Abomination Beyond Comprehension IV (Draft).

Sub-Titled: "Operation Featherweight: Month 58, Week 4, Day 6"

A direct continuation of Part 3; https://watchitdie.blogspot.com/2019/04/an-abomination-beyond-comprehension-iii.html

In that post I looked at the two questions the Military Tribunal will have to answer in processing captured members of ISIL;

Is the accused a Civilian or a Combatant? and Is the accused a lawful or unlawful combatant?

If the Tribunal rules that an individual is a Civilian then they are afforded the full protection of civilian law. A variety of legislation including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).

If the Tribunal rules that an individual is a Combatant they will lose the protections of civilian law. Instead they will be covered by military law. This can be much harsher.

For example in Britain Courts long had the option of sentencing people to either imprisonment or imprisonment with hard labour. Labour which serves no purpose other than punishment.

The policy of hard labour was abolished in 1948. However under US military law you can only sentence someone to imprisonment with hard labour.

How much protection the accused is afforded under military law is determined how the Tribunal rules on the second question. Whether they are a lawful or unlawful combatant.

If they are ruled to be a Lawful Combatant then the accused is afforded Prisoner of War status.

Prisoner of War status means that any acts they may have committed as part of the war are deemed lawful, including killing, and no further legal action is taken against them.

Prisoners of War are though imprisoned indefinitely. Until such a time as the war is over or the Convening Authority holding them decides to release them.

Whilst in custody Prisoners of War are entitled to be treated humanely, provided with adequate food, water, housing and medical attention and allowed to communicate regularly with relatives. They may undertake work for which they must be paid but also have the right to refuse to undertake work.

However if it is ruled that an individual is an Unlawful Combatant they lose all protection under both military and civilian law.

Early in this series of posts I discussed the Prophet Muhammad's instructions to soldiers. Islam's code of ethical war. And how many of those prohibitions have become offences under the Laws of War.

I specifically mentioned the offence of killing a person with protected status. Such as civilians, medical staff and prisoners.

If someone is found to be an Unlawful Combatant they are no longer considered a prisoner and lose that protected status. Essentially they are no longer considered human.

I cannot overstate this enough. As I write this I can see a Fox arrogantly sunning himself outside. That Fox enjoys more legal protection than an Unlawful Combatant.

In terms of what can be done in punishment of an Unlawful Combatant the only restrictions are really the Laws of Physics. Along with the imagination of the person doing the punishing.

So if you want to rape an unlawful combatant you're entitled to. Likewise if you want to torture them or use them as slave labour. If you want to skin them alive in order to use their pelt as a throw rug, feel free.

If you want to use Unlawful Combatants to act out the most gruesome scenes from your favourite horror movie. Go right ahead.

The reason for this complete stripping of all rights is that war itself is an abomination. War Crimes are the acts which even amongst those who choose war as a profession are considered so heinous as to be unforgivable.

Unlawful Combatants are those who wilfully choose to commit those unforgivable acts.

Amongst those who kill and risk death day-in, day-out the punishment must be extraordinarily severe to act as any form of deterrent.

The fact that there is absolutely no restriction on what can be done to punish Unlawful Combatants provides us with a fantastic opportunity to show how we are morally superior to ISIL. By self-imposing voluntarily restrictions on how far we will go in punishing them.

So we won't use them as extras in real-life horror movies. We won't rape them, sexually assault them or use them as slave labour. Nor will we torture them.

It must be said though that under the Laws of War you can still go extremely far in terms of interrogation without crossing the line into torture.

For example much of the interrogation techniques used by the Americans at Guantanamo Bay and routinely used by the Israelis do not constitute torture. Instead they go right up to the line of what is torture, but do not cross it.

Despite those self-imposed restrictions though the expected punishment for any ISIL member found to be an Unlawful Combatant should be the death penalty.

In much the same way that if a British civilian is caught drink driving the expected punishment is that they will be stripped of their driving license.

The reason for imposing the death penalty is really two-fold.

The first consideration is whether it is likely the individual can be rehabilitated. The risk of whether they will continue to pose an ongoing threat to society.

On April 21st 2019 (21/4/19) Sri Lanka was rocked by six bomb attacks. Which together killed 251 people and injured 500 more. These attacks were coordinated and carried out by ISIL members who had been allowed to return from Syria.

As such the ongoing threat that ISIL members pose to society is a severe one and not one that can be underestimated.

The main idea behind prisoner rehabilitation is that most criminals do not set out to become criminals.

Instead they almost accidentally fall into crime through a series of bad choices or adverse situations. If you can remove those adverse situations or empower to make better choices they stop committing crime.

One of the main drivers of crime, particularly theft, in western societies is addiction to illegal drugs. Drug addiction renders you unable to work, but drug addiction is also very expensive. As a result drug addiction drives people to theft in order to fund their addiction.

If you can cure the person of their drug addiction you remove their need to commit crime. Meaning they stop being criminals.

In many western societies most drug addicts convicted of minor theft offences are not sent to prison. Instead they're sentenced to drug rehabilitation because it's far more effective in stopping them reoffending in the future.

Despite that being true for the majority of criminals there is still the small minority who do set out to become criminals. For them it is a lifestyle choice. It is something they enjoy doing and are not going to stop.

The World leader in terms of rehabilitating criminals is probably Norway. On average of all the criminals that pass through Norway's criminal justice and prison system 80% go on to never commit another crime.

As a result of this focus on rehabilitation in Norway the maximum time you can be sent to prison, for any crime, is 20 years. During those 20 years they work really hard to get in there and sort you out.

However Norway still has the problem of that other 20%. The 20% who will go on to commit other crimes.

This was a key issue in the case of Anders Behring Breivik. A White Supremacist who murdered 77 people in combined gun and bomb attacks in Norway. On July 22nd 2011 (22/7/11).

Breivik's is a case I remember well. It was recently brought to renewed attention by the mass shootings at two Mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand.

Annoyingly at around 18:20 on 30/4/19 (UK date) I'm going to pick this up tomorrow.

Edited at around 16:35 on 1/5/19 (UK date) to copy & paste from another tab;

The Norwegian authorities quickly identified Breivik as part of that 20%. Someone who is not going to be rehabilitated and will continue to present an ongoing threat to society.

This presented them with a problem. Despite the severity of his crimes the longest prison sentence Norway could impose on Breivik was just 20 years.

In the manifesto he published as part of his attack Breivik declared himself to be a soldier in an international Christian military. This military force was engaged in a war against Islam's attempts to suppress European, Christian culture and the "Cultural Marxists" who aid and abet Islam.

This claim led to a short but serious discussion over whether Breivik should be tried under the Laws of War. As his actions would likely have led to him being declared an Unlawful Combatant this would have allowed Norway to execute him.

The first argument against this approach was that this international Christian military existed only in Breivik's head. There was no ISIL style international or even national network supporting Breivik. Having extensively checked it was discovered Breivik was the only solider in this personal war of his.

As a result trying him under the Laws of War would test the Laws of War to their breaking point. That could have the unintended consequence of allowing nations to unilaterally declare civilian criminals to be combatants and wrongly trying them under the Laws of War.

The other argument against this approach was that it would grant Breivik undue legitimacy. Trying him as a Combatant would involve acknowledging that there was a war being fought between European Christians and Muslim. Something which would inspire both Christians and Muslims to take up arms and join the fight.

In response to the March 15th 2019 (15/3/19) Christchurch attacks New Zealand's Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has almost revelled in declaring the gunman to be a terrorist. A soldier in the war between European Christianity and Islam.

Following the Christchurch attacks New Zealand police have had to intervene to prevent two other attacks. One in the Richmond Park area of Christchurch on March 26th (26/3/19). Another just yesterday (30/4/19) in  the Phillipstown area of Christchurch.

On Sunday (28/4/19) a gunman attacked a Jewish Synagogue in Poway in the US state of California. In a manifesto published prior to the attack the alleged gunman declared himself to be a White Supremacist who was inspired by the Christchurch attacks.

So I don't think Prime Minister Ardern's response to the Christchurch attacks is something to be commended. It strikes me as a catastrophic failure of leadership which has made people both in New Zealand and the World over less safe.

Another thing that was obvious from Breivik's manifesto is that he was a bit nuts. For example he declares himself to be a soldier in a wholly imagined Christian military. Yet also declared himself to not be a Christian. Instead following the pseudo-religion of Odinism.

So another option that was seriously discussed was declaring Breivik to be criminally insane. That would have allowed for him to be locked up indefinitely in a hospital without the need for a trial.

However it was found that while Breivik was a bit nuts he did not meet the high threshold of criminal insanity. So dealing with him in that way would test the way that confinement of the mentally ill is used to its breaking point. Again running the risk of the unintended consequence system being abused in the future.

What really shut down both of these discussions is that Norway found a legal loophole. If a Judge is convinced that an individual continues to be a threat to society they can impose a new sentence at the end of their existing sentence.

So when Breivik's initial 20 year sentence ends in 2032 it's likely he's just going to be sentenced to another 20 years. Until he eventually just dies in prison. Although if anyone is going to manage the impossible task of rehabilitating the likes of Breivik it's likely to be Norway.

In the years since the September 11th 2001 (11/9/01) attacks there have been numerous schemes to rehabilitate or "deradicalise" Muslim extremists. In the UK the main one of these is known as; "Prevent."

As the name suggests the Prevent scheme is intended to intervene before Muslims with extreme views cross the line into becoming terrorists and criminals. This makes it hard to assess its effectiveness.

There's really no way to tell if those in the Prevent scheme who don't go on to become criminals do so because of the scheme. Or whether they would have never crossed the line from holding extreme views into violence regardless of the Prevent scheme.

One thing that is obvious about the Prevent scheme are its failures. Many of the British ISIL members who've been captured in Syria are themselves graduates of the Prevent scheme.

In terms of deradicalising Muslim terrorists specifically Saudi Arabia is currently seen as the World leader.

Saudi Arabia operate the Prince Mohammed Bin Nayef Centre for Counselling and Care. Of the 3,300 who inmates who have passed through the centre, which resembles a luxury health spa, 123 were transferred there directly from Guantanamo Bay.

Saudi Arabia is a vastly wealthy country. Meaning that it can spend more per inmate than even wealthy nations like the US and Britain can only dream of. It is also home to the two holiest sites in Islam. Meaning that there is no shortage of people in Saudi Arabia who are experts in Islam and Islamic theology.

Despite all these advantages which are unavailable elsewhere the Prince Mohammed Bin Nayef Centre for Counselling and Care still has an official failure rate of 20%. Although the true figure is believed to be much higher.

Yesterday (30/4/19) US President Trump put forward a figure of 1,800 as the number of European ISIL members who are currently being detained by the SDF. A 20% failure rate for 1,800 inmates translates as 360 people who will reoffend.

The April 21st (21/4/19) bombings in Sri Lanka killed 251 people. They were the work of just 6 ISIL members who'd returned from Syria.

So a failure rate of 20% represents a wholly unacceptable ongoing risk to society.

Particularly foreign ISIL members are not victims of circumstance.

They have left often extremely comfortable lives in their native countries to travel thousands of kilometres to commit these War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity. Many on the promise that ISIL will allow them to commit those unforgivable acts.

These are the people for whom crime has been a lifestyle choice. It is something they enjoy doing and will not stop for anyone.

They are the ones who will reoffend and continue to pose a serious threat to society.

At around 16:50 on 1/5/19 (UK date) I'm going to have to pick this up again, later.

Edited again at around 19:45 on 1/5/19 (UK date) to copy & paste from another tab;

The obvious follow up question is why the threat of these captured ISIL members be managed in the same way the threat of Breivik is managed? Through life imprisonment.

A large part of ISIL's recruitment strategy is based on prison radicalisation. ISIL members in prison convincing other prisoners to join the group. The group itself was founded in Camp Bucca, a prison operated by the US military in Iraq following the 2003 invasion.

In November 2015 ISIL conducted a coordinated series of attacks in Paris, France. Those attacks killed 130 people. In March 2016 ISIL followed this up with a coordinated series attacks in Brussels, Belgium. Those killed 32 people.

Both the Paris and Brussels attacks were carried out by the same ISIL cell. The leader of that cell, Abedelhamid Abaaoud, had been radicalised in prison. As had other members of the cell such as Salah Abdeslam and the El-Bakraoui brothers, Ibrahim and Khalid.

The November 2015 Paris attacks came just 11 months after the January 2015 Ile-de-France attacks. This series of attacks included the Charlie Hebdo attack and the Hypercacher Kosher supermarket attack. All three of the attackers, Said Kouachi, Cherif Kouachi and Amedy Coulibaly had also been radicalised in prison.

So if you put these captured ISIL members in prison there is a high risk they will radicalise other prisoners who will be released. Even if all the 1,800 European ISIL members only radicalised one other prisoner you're talking about the number of ISIL members doubling to 3,600.

That's not managing the threat to society. That's making it worse.

Norway also identified the threat of prison radicalisation Breivik presented. As a result he is being kept completely isolated from all other prisoners. Limited to just three cells within a dedicated prison wing.

So when you talk about jailing these 1,800 European ISIL members you're not talking about finding 1,800 prison places. You're talking about finding 1,800 prison wings. Which will have to be maintained for the prisoner's entire natural life.

Building 1,800 new prison wings is simply not something European nations have the resources to do.

Another argument which has been put forward against using the death penalty is that it will turn these members of ISIL into Martyrs. Symbols used to convince others to join the group.

I think this risk is being significantly overstated.

During the course of this war tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of ISIL members have been killed. Including members of the Brussels cell responsible for the attacks in France and Belgium. Other members of ISIL have proudly Martyred themselves carrying out attacks in the war.

So when it comes to creating ISIL Martyrs there are already many to choose from. That rubicon has firmly been crossed. A few more members of ISIL being killed is not going to make much difference in terms of propaganda.

That argument against using the death penalty also badly under-estimates the damage, in terms of propaganda, which can be done by living prisoners.

The history books are full of examples. The first generation of the Red Army Faction (RAF) held at Stammheim Prison. Marwan Barghouti and a host of other Palestinian Political Prisoners.

South Africa's Nelson Mandela went on to be extremely effective from his prison cell.

Even the 10 Provisional Irish Republican Army (PIRA) hunger-strikers led by Bobby Sands caused more disruption in their protest than in their deaths. Including Bobby Sands standing for and being elected to the British Parliament whilst in prison.

Breivik himself is a good example.

He is being held in isolation with severely restricted visits and communications, such as letters.

Yet he still manages to maintain a public profile. Notably through his attempts to sue Norway's prison service, both in Norway then through the European Court of Human Rights (UNHCR).

He has been cited as inspiration by several copycat attacks. Most recently in New Zealand in Poway in the US.

By contrast the dead tend to just disappear and be forgotten.

At around 19:50 on 1/5/19 (UK date) I'm going to have to finish the final bit of this section tomorrow.

Edited again at around 15:10 on 2/5/19 (UK date) to copy & paste from another tab;

The second consideration is whether the punishment will deter others from committing the same crimes in the future.

The crimes of which ISIL stand accused are the worst imaginable. The most serious of them are consider to be so severe as to be crimes against all of humanity.

The most serious, Extermination/Genocide, has its own international memorial day. On January 27th each year. This sees political leaders the World over gather and collectively mumble their way through the phrase; "Never Again."

For "Never Again" to be more than just an empty phrase it must be backed up by action. Even if that action is difficult or uncomfortable.

The people who commit crimes such as genocide have no qualms about killing. They often operate in harsh conditions where they themselves are at almost constant risk of being killed.

The prospect of living out the rest of your life in a safe prison with adequate food, water, medical attention and regular contact with loved ones does not serve as any deterrent to these people. Often being sent to prison will be a marked improvement on their living conditions while they were committing their crimes.

So to help prevent these crimes in the future the World must take the opportunity to send the clear the message to those thinking about committing them;

"We Will Fight You. We Will Stop You. And We Will Kill You."

Traditionally this has always been the message the World has sent out following a genocide. However it started to change with the International Criminal Tribunal on Yugoslavia (ICTY) and the formation of the International Criminal Court (ICC).

Then the message became;

"It doesn't matter if you murder 8,000 Muslims at Srebrenica. We only think that's worth you spending a few years in a comfortable prison in the Netherlands."

I can't help but wonder if it was that new found tolerance of genocide which led ISIL to think they could get away with it.

15:25 on 2/5/19 (UK date).