Zinedine Zidane: From man to god and back

The indisputable facts of Zinedine Zidane’s participation in the 2006 World Cup in Germany are as follows: matches played: 6, goals scored: 3, yellow cards received: 3, red cards received: 1. Everything else has become the subject of such debate and speculation that for many Italy’s triumph has become almost an afterthought.

Of the galaxy of stars assembled at the World Cup, it was “Zizou” who shone brightest and most brilliantly before exploding like a supernova in Berlin. In truth his form did not match that of the Italian skipper Cannavaro, the tournament’s outstanding defender, yet his brand of determined rearguard brilliance cannot capture the imagination as Zidane’s.

Not since Maradona in Mexico '86 has one player been so much the focal point of attention at football’s quadrennial carnival. And not since Maradona's “hand of god” goal against England has a player produced a moment of such scandal and controversy as Zidane: a headbutt to the chest of Italian defender Materazzi which earned him a dismissal in the final. It was the last act in the career of the greatest talent the game has seen for the past 15 years

The second coming

Zidane was not even supposed to be at the World Cup having retired from international football two years earlier after the European Championships in Portugal. A lacklustre France crashed out at the quarter-final stage to eventual winners Greece and it seemed Zidane’s days with les blues had come to an underwhelming conclusion.

His club career at Real Madrid seemed to be following suit. There was a glorious climax to his first season with Real when he struck a stunning volleyed winner in the European Cup final to add the most prestigious prize in club football to his international honours. But that proved to be the high point as Real crumbled under the hubris the “galacticos” policy. In his final seasons Zidane seemed tired and jaded, even his great talents unable to lift Madrid’s bloated squad above mediocrity.

With France struggling in their World Cup qualifying campaign, the call went up for the old guard to return. Zidane, along with fellow retirees Thuram and Makelele, was coaxed out of retirement by coach Domenech. Viera gladly yielded the captaincy back to Zidane.

No doubt the frustrations of his last years in Madrid tempted him to return to les blues for the chance of one more trophy and a glorious send-off. He negotiated an annulment of the final year of his contract with Real and announced that he would retire from all football at the end of the World Cup. Win or lose, France’s last match in Germany would be the last match of his career.

Yet Zidane's return proved to be no panacea to France’s woes. They limped through to the finals and arrived in Germany as firm outsiders. Abject displays in their opening two games did little to inspire confidence. There were rumours of a rift between Domenech and his captain, Zidane having stormed off angrily after being substituted against South Korea. With France in danger of elimination and Zidane suspended for the final group match it seemed the grand ending to his career he sought would instead be another disappointment.

Against Togo, France needed to win to be sure of a place in the knockout rounds. Win they did, sans Zizou, with an improved display which had some questioning if the captain should return. Zidane, they said, was too old, too slow and too ponderous to play alongside the young guns in the French team. Would Domenech do the unthinkable and drop his captian for the clash with Spain?

France lined up with Zidane, but for perhaps the first time in a decade they found themselves as underdogs against an impressive young Spanish side. Spanish supporters, having seen the end of Zidane’s club career only weeks before, brought banners reading “Au revoir, Zidane”, so confident were they of ending what remained of his career. But it instead turned out to be “Adios Espana”, Zidane himself capping a resurgent French victory by skipping past Puyol, Spain’s finest defender, and slotting home in the final moments.

Most thought Zidane had merely earned himself a stay of execution, as France faced tournament favourites Brazil next. Up against Ronaldinho, his successor as FIFA’s official best player in the world, he responded by producing one of the all-time great World Cup performances. Rolling back the years, his full repertoire of touches, dribbles, flicks and passes was on show. From the very first minute he mesmerised and confounded the Brazilians and set up the winner for Henry with a wonderfully flighted free kick, all while never threatening to score a goal himself. Zidane’s performance demonstrated again that he was the playmaker supreme; a virtuoso whose artistry functions for the betterment of the team.

Portugal were dispatched in the semi-final, a largely forgettable match settled with a Zidane penalty. He now had his date with destiny; the final match of his career would be a World Cup final against Italy. To lead his country to a second world championship would surely provide confirmation of what many already professed and still do: that Zidane belongs alongside names such as Pele, Beckenbauer and Maradona as one of very greatest players the game has known.

Despite the presence of other world class talents in their squad, Zidane’s teammates spoke of him in almost reverential terms. When quizzed on the reason for their confidence before the final more than one French player answered to the effect of “we have Zizou and they don’t”.

Early in the match, Malouda tumbled in the area and France were awarded a penalty. As in the semi up stepped the captain. His previous attempt from the spot has been a powerful effort whipped low into left corner. Facing Buffon, rated by most as the world’s best keeper, he produced an audacious chip of such backspin that it hit the crossbar before bouncing down over the line, hitting the crossbar again and then out. Zidane tuned away to celebrate sheepishly, knowing how close his daring had come to costing his team.

Italy equalised shortly with a header from Materazzi, but after half-time France began to dominate. The talk before the final was of how the aging legs of Zidane and others would be exploited by the Italians, but instead it was the French who looked full of energy. Following their captain's lead, the other veterans of the French side seemed to summon untapped reserves of will for a final push to victory.

Just before the half-time in extra-time, Zidane slid the ball out to Sagnol on the right. The full-back delivered a perfect cross into the area towards Zidane, who had continued his run. For once the tiring Italian defence failed to pick him up and he rose to power a header towards goal. Buffon denied him with a majestic leaping save. Zidane had almost sealed his own fairy tale ending.

“Oh, Zinedine. Pas ça, Zinedine.”

The dream had been so close, but now came the nightmare. With 10 minutes to go, after exchanging words with Materazzi, the same famed, balding scalp responsible for those two headed goals in the ’98 final in Paris delivered a firm coup de tête to the Italian’s chest. Materazzi could not have collapsed more dramatically if he had been shot, but Zidane’s punishment was inevitable: a red card.

The reaction of French TV commentators was shock, disbelief, confusion, despair. French supporters in the stadium, not privy to replays of the incident, howled their disapproval until the final whistle. With both teams drained and the atmosphere poisoned, the remainder of the game spluttered towards a penalty shoot-out, won by Italy after a solitary miss by Trezeguet.

In the immediate aftermath Zidane remained silent. Materazzi has never been anyone’s idea of a sporting gentleman and doubtless it was some obscene comment which provoked Zidane. News organisations around the world scrambled to find lip-readers to decipher the Italian’s insults. Common suggestions were slurs on Zidane’s family or his Algerian-Muslim heritage. For his part Materazzi only issued a few clumsy statements of defence.

The day after it emerged that Zidane had won the “Golden Ball” award for player of the tournament on votes cast by journalists before the conclusion of the final. FIFA president Blatter, clueless to a fault, made the hollow suggestion that Zidane’s could be stripped of the award.

In an eventual TV interview, Zidane was reticent about details, saying only the insults concerned his mother and sister. "I do apologise but I don't regret my behaviour because regretting it would mean he was right to say what he said." Non, je ne regrette rien.

The Player. The Icon. The Man.

It was estimated that over one billion people watched the final in Berlin. Over the past 15 years through his exploits for France, Cannes, Boudreaux, Juventus and Real Madrid, Zidane has been possibly the most watched player at a time when football’s appeal has never been greater.

His footballing story has now come to a bitter end, but manner in which it has captivated the world is a testament sport’s unique cultural appeal and capacity for human drama. Twice Zidane has appeared on football’s greatest stage and in those two performances he has shown us ecstasy and agony, genius and madness, glory and shame, joy and anger, triumph and defeat.

The world first knew Zidane the player; one of peerless touch, vision and control. Since that night in Paris it has known Zidane the icon; of France, of racial integration, of Gallic flair and genius; of football’s global appeal. After Berlin, not for the first time but more starkly than ever, it knows the Zidane the man; capable of sporting feats most can only dream of, yet also capable of the same follies and weaknesses as the rest of us. If you prick him, will he not bleed? And if you wrong him, shall he not revenge?

The world watched to see Zidane ascend to the footballing pantheon, but was instead reminded that a man with god-like talent remains just that: a man.

Japan wins key vote on commercial whaling

No words needed.

Quote of the day

Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence. - Napoleon Bonaparte

Chirac and de Villepin meet their Waterloo

Massive protests have forced French PM Dominique de Villepin and President Jacques Chirac into a humiliating climbdown over the proposed "contrat première embauche" employment law reforms.

For de Villepin, this defeat surely ends any chance of succeeding Chirac. The centre-right UMP will now turn to Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy as its candidate for the presidential election in 2007. Chirac's appointment of de Villepin over Sarkozy to the post of Prime Minister was intended to pave the way for his protege to be the centre-right's frontrunner; instead he seems to have handed him a poisoned chalice.

For Chirac this was just the latest humiliation of a nightmare term in office. He was bolstered in the first half by assuming a leading position in opposing the US invasion of Iraq, but domestically he has lurched from one setback to another. This latest episode completes a trifecta of major revolts against his leadership; first with the "Non" vote in the EU constitution referendum, then last November's suburban riots and now the CPE protests.

As with the EU referendum, the French leadership's failure to convince its people to embrace change has dealt a blow to the wider European reformist agenda, which recognises the need for Europe's economies to become more flexible and competitive in responce to the challenges of globalization.

Few can doubt that France's levels of unemployment are unacceptably high and structural reform of the labour market is needed. But de Villepin's CPE, which would have made it easier for companies to "hire and fire" employees aged under 26, foolishly targeted students and youths. Les jeunes predictably took to the streets to reprise the events of May '68. A keen student of history, de Villepin (who has authored a biography of Napoleon) should have known better than to disregard France's revolutionary past and tradition of protest.

All of Europe will now wait until next year's election for the leadership vacuum at the top of French politics to be filled. Chirac will decline to run again and let his sorry second term peter out, while de Villepin's own presidential prospects are in tatters. In Napoleonic terms, he has met his Waterloo even before his Austerlitz.

Anwar Ibrahim: the James Dean of Malaysian politics

Anwar Ibrahim has a piece today in the Sydney Morning Herald, commenting on US efforts to bring democracy to the Muslim world, a privilege he could not hope to be afforded in the newspapers of his home country of Malaysia. Of course once Anwar’s every public utterance would be given coverage in Malaysia’s press when he was both Finance Minister and Deputy Prime Minister, the second most powerful man in the country and heir apparent to Mahathir Mohammad. Before the Asian financial Crisis of 1997, before his fallout with Mahathir, before his sacking and subsequent jailing on dubious corruption and sodomy charges.

A BBC reporter, responding to a question on his prospects for a political comeback after his release, noted that Anwar was “a man of some charisma and intellect, something that’s very much lacking in Malaysian politics”. A classic piece of British understatement if ever there was one.

That charisma and intellect have won him many supporters outside Malaysia. Marginalized at home, he has reinvented himself as voice of moderate Islam for the post-9/11 era. He tours the international speaking circuit, preaching both Islamic reformism and criticism of American foreign policy, appealing to both right and left wing sections of Western audiences. He also serves as a visiting fellow at St. Anthony's College, Oxford and Georgetown University in Washington. Such associations probably only serve to damn him further with his opponents; as a turncoat more interested in pleasing foreigners than serving his own people, a quisling who would conspire to sell out his country’s interests.

His prospects of a substantive comeback in Malaysian politics remain bleak. He has mooted running at the next general election, possibly taking over the seat currently held by his wife for the Keadilan (Justice) Party, but a return to anything approaching his former influence is unlikely given the hegemony of the ruling UMNO party and government control over the media.

Exiled from power, Anwar remains the leader unfulfilled, a symbol of the promise of reform and renewal as yet unrealized. Perhaps had he been afforded the opportunity he would have proved a disappointment, lapsing into the established vices once assuming the vestiges of power. He’s the James Dean of Malaysian politics: a talented man who fell before his time; admired not so much for what was, but what could have been.

Israel votes to move "forward" with Sharon's vision

So it seems Ariel Sharon’s legacy is secured by Kadima’s victory in the Israeli elections. His former party, the once mighty Likud, is now a rump on the outer right fringes of Israel’s new political orbit; the one he founded in the months before his stroke is now the largest party in the Knesset and will head the new government under his successor, Ehud Olmert. Kadima, meaning “forward” in Hebrew, will now forge ahead with Sharon’s agenda of unilateral separation, which began with the withdrawal from Gaza. Though he lies unaware in a coma, the party and the vision of a final settlement he conceived has now secured the electoral mandate to proceed.

For Sharon the problem was never Arafat, Hamas or indeed even terrorism. No martial force the Palestinians could muster constitute an existential threat to Israel, with GDP per capita many times that of the Palestinians, armed with nuclear weapons, backed by US military and political aid. The Palestinians' own “nuclear weapon”, the suicide bomber, is ultimately as ineffective as it is obscene.

The problem was the peace process, which demanded Sharon to concede more than he was willing. Where Israel could not be compelled on the battlefield through guerilla and terror tactics, it could be forced to yield through a diplomatic process given the approval and support of world opinion. The growing acknowledgement of the Palestinian national cause throughout the 70s and 80s eventually forced the US and Israel to commit to a Palestinian state. The Palestinians' ultimate weapons were pen-wielding diplomats giving statements before the world’s TV cameras, not fanatical youths with explosives strapped to their bodies recording their final testimonies on camcorders.

This in turn led to the Israeli policy of escalation in order to avoid negotiation, dating all the way back to the invasion of Lebanon, through the first Intifadah and the rise of Hamas, the collapse of the peace process, Sharon’s election and the second Intifadah. The net effect was a gradual undermining of moderate, secular Palestinian parties and the strengthening of more extremist Islamist factions. This reached its culmination with the death of Arafat, in his last years rendered “irrelevant” in Sharon’s own assessment. In his absence the Fatah party collapsed at the first opportunity, leading to the current Hamas government.

The doctrine of unilateral separation has, as its justification, the notion that Israel had “no partner for peace”, not in Arafat and certainly not now in Hamas. A bilateral settlement is not possible; therefore Israel will act unilaterally to dictate its borders on its terms, to exclusion of Palestinian rights, UN resolutions and international opinion. This will be hailed by their US sponsors as brave moves towards peace, and any dissenting Palestinian voices dismissed as the objections of a terrorist regime, indeed a terrorist people.

The Israeli agenda remains the same: to give up most of the West Bank, “compensating” the Palestinians for the arable land and water supplies Israel wishes to retain with parts it does not, but crucially retaining all of Jerusalem and its surrounding suburbs and settlements, along with absolute rejection of right of return for Palestinian refugees. Through all the various conferences, accords, changes of government and new leaderships since Oslo, the basic outline of Israel’s end-goals have not changed much, Sharon’s one major modification to sensibly concede Gaza.

The latest version involves retaining the settlements deep in the West Bank and linking them to Jerusalem via a highway corridor. Greater Jerusalem and other settlements are to be secured by the completion of the “security fence”, erected with little regard to the 1967 borders, and in addition a “security border” will be maintained along the Jordan Valley. These moves effectively split in two and encircle the territory of any future Palestinian state and cut it off from the main economic and cultural centre of Jerusalem, as well as to whatever additional restrictions Israel seeks to impose. What is left to the Palestinians can only amount to a Bantustan: diminished, dispossessed, isolated, divided, surrounded, deprived; in a word: unviable.

Kadima’s victory will be hailed by “liberal” Western observers, telling us that the rubicon has been crossed, that Israelis have tired of bloodshed and voted for an end to conflict. And when he does finally expire, praised will be heaped upon Sharon, eulogies written to effect of “Only Nixon could go to China”. Only Sharon, the butcher of Sabra and Shatila, could have achieved peace by dragging Israel towards unilateral separation, to eschew diplomacy and set the terms of settlement itself, could make the “painful concessions” of dismantling some of its illegal settlements and giving up part of its occupied territory. Bush will no doubt be moved to repeat his observation that Sharon was a “man of peace”.

Thus the basis of Israeli policy, backed by the US, remains as it ever was: rejection of UN Resolution 242, rejection of the 1967 borders and rejection of Palestinian rights. Rejectionism sold to the world first as occupation, then as peace process and now as unilateral separation. “Kadima” indeed.

Bloody funny

A few weeks ago the Aussie press whipped up a minor diplomatic frenzy over the issue of a Tourism Australia ad being banned from British TV. The ad consisted of scenes featuring Australia's manifold natural and *ahem* cultural attractions, ending with the tagline "So where the bloody hell are you?". British TV censors initially objected to use of the word "bloody", before later letting it pass.

The Aussie press played on the popular stereotypes of each nation, saying that it was yet another case of the dour, humourless, uptight Pommies not being able to deal with a slightly rude bit of carefree, cheeky, larrkin-spirited Aussie humour. The suggestion was also that Brits were somehow made uncomfortable at their beautiful, idyllic, sun-baked paradise being promoted so aggressively, and were eager to keep the ad off TV screens.

But now Tourism Australia has threatened legal action against internet comedian Dan Ilic, who produced a parody of the ad, changing the jingle to "So where the f***ing hell are you?" and inserting negative images of Australian life. Ilic has agreed to take his versions of the ads offline, but vows to return with remixed versions which don't infringe the copyright of the Tourism Australia jingle. And the carefree, cheeky, larrkin-spirited Aussie humour seems to have receded faster than Shane Warne's hairline. This proves one certainty: like sqabbling sibblings, the Brits and Aussies will always have more in common than either would like to admit.

Australia. Get bitten by a shark at Bondi. Be racially abused at a cricket match. Get murdered, your body never to be found, by a drifter in the Outback. Stay at one of our lovely detention centres. Have your freedom of expression curtailed. So where the f**king hell are you?

French Revolution against Apple's iMonopoly

France is not a country usually noted for vigorous advocacy of free markets, but it has struck a blow for open competition, albeit at an American cultural imperialist. French MPs have voted last week to force Apple’s iTunes online music store to cease its practice of prohibiting its downloads from playing on anything other than the company’s own iPods portable music players. Apple may now seek to withdraw iTunes from the France, but if this decision gains momentum through the European Commission it will face a much bigger problem, which might well force them to open iTunes up to competing devices.

Apple and its enthusiasts have always looked to cast the company in the role of the underdog we should root for: the plucky, stylish, innovator David against the grey, monolithic, bullying Goliaths (IBM in the 80s, Microsoft today). Yet in one area where Apple is dominant, it stands condemned of the same brand of abuses as Microsoft. Perhaps this merely reflects a similar trend to Apple's decision to switch to Intel microprocessors traditionally used in Windows PCs for its machines: different on the outside, same on the inside.

A market controlled by one or a small number of companies can lead to benefits such as productivity gains which can be passed on to consumers and global standards of goods and services, but can also stifle innovation, reduce choice and lead to monopolistic pricing and anti-competitive policies such as Apple’s iTunes-on-iPod-only policy. The invisible hand of the market still needs the guiding hand of government regulation to ensure consumers get the best deal.

And justice for all

Slobodan Milosevic found dead in his cell at the Hague. The death of man who was the main instigator of a war which left more than 250,000 people dead should not be the cause of any disappointment; instead it seems like a last cruel joke on his victims and enemies.

It's hard to see this development as anything other than blow to the system of international criminal justice. Whatever the truth about his death, his supporters will assign responsibility firmly on the Hague Tribunal and its sponsors. Milosevic is doubly the winner from the circumstances of his departure: his crimes will now escape the judgement and sentence of international justice, while his legacy as a martyr for the Serbian nationalist cause, the only consolation that was left open to him, is now secured.

There were those, myself included, who believed that Serbia should have been afforded the dignity and closure of trying Milosevic in its own courts prior to being brought before any international body. It's ironic that his premature demise has now handed final judgement over his deeds back into the hands of the Serbian people.

Gay cowboys rustled out of Oscar

Crash over Brokeback Mountain for Best Picture? This is a result destined to go down in the same vein of infamy as Forrest Gump over Pulp Fiction, Annie Hall over Star Wars, Shakespeare in Love over Saving Private Ryan and Titanic over anything.

I've yet to see Crash, and have no intention to go out of my way to do so despite the collective wisdom of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. But I have seen Brokeback, and it is the greatest love story of any sexual orientation I've ever seen. The love and pain portrayed by Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhaal and orchestrated Ang Lee (Best Director of not-the-Best-Picture; how does that work?) is stark and moving, at times almost visceral in its raw emotion. It's an epic tale of tragedy, fueled not by a backdrop of crime, poverty, war or political upheaval, but the banality and everyday intolerance of society. Beautifully shot and wonderfully scored; one of the greatest westerns ever made and an earnest examination of the subjects of friendship and masculinity.

The good news for Brokeback, like those other undeserving Oscar losers, is that history and posterity, not the Academy voters, are the ultimate arbiters of which films become true classics.

Whit Stillman's Metropolitan: Doomed Bourgeois on DVD

I just found out one of my all-time favourite movies, Whit Stillman's Metropolitan, has finally received a long overdue DVD release.

Metropolitan tracks the story of Tom Townsend; a young, middle-class New York intellectual with socialist inclinations and a preference for literary criticism instead of actual novels. Quite by accident, he falls in with a group of Park Avenue party goers. Initially distant and haughty, through numerous debutante balls, bridge games and discussions on Jane Austen, he gradually overcomes his ideological snobbery to find friendship and love amongst the self-dubbed Urban Haute Bougeoisie, or UHB.

It's impossible to watch Metropolitan without drawing comparisons with that other auteur of the Manhattan UHB, Woddy Allen. Like Allen's earlier work, Stillman's script sparkles with an educated wit and irony while dissecting the social rituals and conventions of New York's upper classes, but without the self-obsession and Jewish neurosis. As he did again in pseudo-sequel The Last Days of Disco, Stillman evokes the quiet desperation of the privileged youth of a social class in decline, whose determined response is to party the nights away.

Made in 1990 for $300,000, financed partly by Stillman morgaging his house, featuring an a first-time director and a cast of unknowns, Metropolitan went on to garner critical acclaim and an Oscar nomination for Best Original Screenplay. It stands as both a biting satire and an affectionate defence of Manhattan's old WASP-ish elite.

"Multi-cultism" in Malaysia

In the space of a few dusty hours and clamorous city blocks I have contributed my quart to the gallons of milk being ceremonially poured over a statue of the Hindu Lord Ganesh (thus removing all obstacles to prosperity, peace and success), been enlightened under a bodhi tree by a Buddhist businessman of Sri Lankan origin, inhaled the incense offered to selected gods by the Chinese marking the end of their new year in the See Yeoh temple, listened to a Malay choir practising English hymns in the Anglican church of St Mary and discussed the finer points of Islamic banking with a Malaysian sheltering from torrential rain at the beautiful Jamek mosque. This is not just multiculturalism but multi-cultism in one city. All human faith is here. Yet Malaysia is a majority Muslim country, where Islam is the official religion.

Timothy Garton Ash's latest Guardian column weighs in on religious multiculturalism in Malaysia, which is so often raised as the model of moderate, tolerant Islam for others to emulate. Having recently attended a conference on Islamic-Western relations in Kuala Lumpur, he finds reasons for optimism, but also brings words of caution.

Garton Ash is a must read for anyone even vaguely interested in world affairs, a voice of calm and lucidity amongst the rhetoric and hyperbole of newspaper opinion pages and internet blogs. He made his name chronicling the changes in Eastern Europe as it emerged from the yoke of Communism and moved towards reconciliation with the West. It would serve us all well if he now performed a similar project for the Islamic world over the coming years.

Burn baby, burn!

Burn baby burn! Burn baby burn! Burn baby burn! Burn baby burn! Burnin'!

To mass fires, yes! One hundred stories high
People gettin' loose y'all gettin' down on the roof - Do you hear?
(the folks are flaming)Folks were screamin' - out of control
It was so entertainin' - when the boogie started to explode
I heard somebody say

Burn baby burn! - Disco inferno!
Burn baby burn! - Burn that mama down
Burn baby burn! - Disco inferno!
Burn baby burn! - Burn that mama down
Burnin'!

Satisfaction (uhu hu hu) came in the chain reaction
(burnin') I couldn't get enough, (till I had to self-destroy)so I had to
self destruct, (uhu hu hu)
The heat was on (burnin'), rising to the top, huh!
Everybody's goin' strong (uhu hu hu)
And that is when my spark got hot
I heard somebody say

Burn baby burn! - Disco inferno!
Burn baby burn! - Burn that mama down, yoh!
Burn baby burn! - Disco inferno!
Burn baby burn! - Burn that mama down
Burnin'!

Up above my head I hear music in the air - I hear music!
That makes me know there's (somebody)a promise somewhere

Satisfaction came in a chain reaction - Do you hear?
I couldn't get enough, so I had to self destruct,
The heat was on, rising to the top
Everybody's goin' strong
That is when my spark got hot
I heard somebody say

Burn baby burn! - Disco inferno! (Aah yeah!)
Burn baby burn! - Burn that mama down
Burn baby burn! - Disco inferno, yeah!
Burn baby burn! - Burn that mama down
Burnin'!

I just can't stop
When(till) my spark gets hot
Just can't stop
When my spark gets hot

Burning, burning, burning, burning.........

Cartoon violence

Well I suppose I'll better write something about the Danish cartoons and the worldwide riot they seem to have precipitated, though its possibly the most depressing post I've written yet.

The cartoons may be ill advised, insensitive and maybe even blasphemous. But freedom of speech is not freedom if we do not defend those who choose to walk on its boundaries. We cannot say we value our rights if we do not defend the same rights exercised by someone else, no matter how unwisely. By the same token one cannot begrudge the right of Muslims to express their indignity though protest or boycott, freedom cuts both ways.

Some European newspapers have chosen to publish the cartoons, which can either be seen as a brave show of solidarity with the Danes in the name of free speech or deliberately thumbing their noses at incensed Muslims. Most reasonable people would take the "Yes, but...." position of professing their belief in free speech, followed by qualifying it with a responsibility to respect the beliefs and sensitivities of others.

This of course is the entirely correct and commonsense position; rights should be exercised responsibly, but unfortunately the widespread and violent response to the cartoons have taken the debate beyond a simple question of good taste and manners and into one of protecting democratic freedoms against theocratic censorship. The editor of the newspaper has already acknowledged the offence his decisions have caused and apologised, yet extremists from Jakarta to London still call for his head. Regimes such as those in Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Iran now presume to dictate what can and cannot be published in a democratic European country. Against such a backdrop, a clear and unambiguous stance must be taken.

It is deeply unfortunate that such anger, hatred and readiness for violence exists in the Muslim world; yet should we be surprised when we survey the slums of Gaza or Baghdad and the corrupt autocrats and extremists who rule over them? If it was not clear before, a total rethink of the world's approach to the Middle East and the wider Muslim world is needed. But that will not happen overnight, even if the will to do so existed from today; what is needed now is a clear stance that despite whatever perceived grievances the Muslim world holds against the West, its principles of freedom cannot and will not bend in the face of thuggish violence and intimidation.

Democracy + Terrorism = Hamas

Throughout most of the world the reply to Hamas' landslide victory in the recent Palestinian legislative election has been frosty. Again and again we are told that terrorism can have no place in civilised, democratic politics.

They are correct of course; one can never condone the deliberate attacks on civilians; but what stance is to be taken then on Israel's "targeted killings", which indiscriminately claim the lives of bystanders as well as militants? The suicide bombing is grotesque act of inhumanity, but what other riposte do the Palestinians have to Israeli F-16s and Apaches? Debates on the "moral equivalence" of Israeli policies have little currency on the Arab street, where such subtleties are recognised as yet another hypocrisy of Western imperialism.

The perception exists, whether correct or not, that Israel's withdrawals from Lebanon and Gaza were military defeats, brought about by the guerrilla and terror tactics of groups such as Hamas. Is it any wonder that these were seized upon as victories in contrast to the failures at the negotiating table? Yasser Araft foreswore terrorism and abandoned the hope of reclaiming all of historic Palestine to walk the path of diplomacy; he died having endured a string of humiliations and failures, his people's ambitions unfulfilled.

Democracy is nothing if not the will of the people, and the will of the decisive majority of Palestinians has been made clear: a rejection of the corrupt and failed leadership of Fatah and a mandate for Hamas to continue its armed struggle as a means to achieve their national aspirations. Who would expect anything less from an oppressed and brutalised people, most of whom have known nothing but exile and occupation? One can only hope that the Israeli electorate exercises greater moderation when it goes to the polls in March.

In the neo-conservative Bush worldview, America leads the free and democratic world in the struggle against the forces of oppression, fundamentalism and terror. The Hamas victory delivers another blow to this fanciful delusion. Events in Iraq, Lebanon, Iran and now Palestine make one thing clear: though America may wield military power greater than any, the ultimate force in the region is that of the masses, and they alone will decide its future.

It's democracy George, but not as you know it.