The fifth installment of our acclaimed series, “A Short History of Israel”, is now up: The Suez Crisis.

If you have not read the preceding installments, you can find them linked from the Table of Contents.

Oooh, how exciting! One of our regulars, a reasonable man, he says (well he always did have a good sense of humour),

has started blogging. Knowing Gil, we were expecting to find some deep thoughts about the latest political situation, or a glowing tribute to Microsoft. Instead, we found toilet paper. And as it's on blogspot, whose archive links might as well be toilet paper, visit it soon or search for “toilet paper”.

Tony Martin, a farmer who shot a burglar, has been refused parole, which he would have received by now if he had been willing to say that what he did was wrong. Gun crime in Britain has risen by 35 percent and robbery by 14.5 percent. In response, David Blunkett is seeking a ban on replica guns. Despite the disastrous record of the already draconian anti-gun policy, he is seeking further restrictions. Why?

In the simple minds of Nanny State operatives ministers like Blunkett, the thinking goes like this: if people have guns, they will commit crimes with these guns, therefore Nanny the responsible, effective and ever-vigilant authorities must prevent her charges citizens from getting their hands on them. Who could possibly disagree with this illogical and antiliberal common-sense idea?

Some nefarious characters acquire guns with the intent of committing crimes. This is true now, and it would be true if guns were legal. But someone should sit Blunkett down and explain to him that people have free will and might choose to buy guns for perfectly moral reasons. Moreover, his idea that crime is caused by the buying of guns is an insult to human beings in general and to would-be law-abiding gun owners in particular. This may come as a surprise to Blunkett, but a gun cannot control a person's mind and force him to commit crimes; it is an inanimate object.

Some of us would like to be able to buy guns for self-defence. Big mistake. It's just not cricket to prevent a person going about his unlawful violent business. After the decision was made to keep Tony Martin locked up, Mark Leech, founder of the ex-offenders' charity Unlock, expressed approval of the Court's decision. He explained why, on this occasion, Unlock is in favour of lock:

“We don't have a death sentence for burglary in this country and we don't want one either.”

In other words, he wants Mr Martin to be kept in prison for as long as possible because he wants the penalties for crime in Britain to be lower.