, Alan Johnston, may have been murdered. Adloyada has more.
Mr Johnston’s reporting from Gaza has been criticised on this blog several times. Some commenters have said that they have little or no sympathy for him because of their opposition to his views.
After 9/11, so many people said that if this or that happened “the terrorists will have won” that the phrase became a laughing stock. But there was a core of truth in that phrase before it was damaged by over-use. If we fail, on political grounds, to feel sympathy for and outrage on behalf of a person who has been kidnapped and may have been murdered, it is a victory for the terrorists.
http://www.mpacuk.org/content/vi…t/view/3557/34/
mick in the uk | 16.04.07 – 9:51 pm
Thanks for that Mick. No surprise that British Mohamedans would be the first to blame Israel, but as I predicted others are on the case too:
“The Party With the Most to Gain”
Good to see a group hug against the PA….until Monday that is:
http://www.nuj.org.uk/inner.php?docid=1685
IiD:
Good to see a group hug against the PA….until Monday that is
Here’s how the “Palestinians” show their appreciation of journalists’ support:
Guards beat reporters at BBC journalist kidnapping protest
BioD-
Do you think one or two are having “Nick Cohen” moments now?
Nice to see the Today fan club out in force….
Now I wonder who wrote these 🙂
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/04/empty_chairs.html#commentsanchor
JG wrote:
“What a self-important bunch the Today team are. Do you really think that our elected politicians should march to the tune you have decided will best boost your ratings on a particular day.
I would have thought that one of the reasons they no longer automatically jump when called is the falling standards at the Today program. The same old faces are wheeled out time after time and given an easy ride when their leftist views are in agreement with the editorial line (bias?) of Today. Politicians with different views (right of centre) know they will get a hard time, so is any wonder why they stopped turning up?”
Anthony wrote:
“Oh, come on, you are quite arrogant”.
Alison Finn wrote:
“Why are you suggesting all Ministers are male?”
MD wrote:
“I am really not terribly interested in whether a Minister deigns to go and be interrogated or goaded by Humphreys – a man who positively rings with self-regard.
It makes no difference whatsoever to democracy, which is sadly lacking in this country where we are forced to pay for a BBC which treats the majority with contempt, according to its whim.
There is nothing we can do about this in the short term as we do not have governments or institutions which carry out the wishes of the people – and no swift means of changing things when they don’t. So far from being some important champion or solution, the BBC is very much part of the problem. It has an insufferable arrogance towards the people and an inflated view of its own importance.”
Nick Mallory wrote:
“Why does the Today programme think it runs the country? It’s the most arrogant, and increasingly unlistenable, programme on the air. Why should any politician appear on it to be endlessly badgered for not being left wing enough? The naked bias of the show is the issue you should be addressing here. Politicians have better things to do than appear on it, and license payers, forced to fork out for this Guardianista guff on pain of imprisonment, have better things to do than listen to it.”
Ron Norton wrote:
“The reason they don’t accept your kind invitation is the following :-
You have no real interest in getting the truth, your interest is getting them to deviate from their script.
Mr. Blair has said it many times, they would love to answer questions freely, but can’t, because you and all your journalist friends would crucify them.”
PD Burnett wrote:
“With the treatment meted out to politicians (except LibDems) on the Today programme, why would any decent person step forward to become a politician? Just listen to Jim Naughtie on Iraq. You can sense the rise in his anger at anything other than total acceptance that the war was a mistake. The Today programme may use bigger words, but in terms of bias, it is on a par with the RedTops. Not having a minister present, should require the presenter to put both sides of the case, rather than relish the prospect of ramming more specious libdem drivel down our throats.”
He was my enemy. I shall rejoice.
Do you think one or two are having “Nick Cohen” moments now?
IiD | 17.04.07 – 2:17 pm
We can but hope, but my experience of talking to ‘old lefties’ is that they’re simply not willing to listen to facts, look reality in the eye, and come to any other conclusion than those tired memes which they trot out continuously.
It could still happen if events affect them on a personal level.
Apologies if this has already been posted, but I saw it and my jaw dropped. You expect this kind of thing from a bug-eyed, drooling, wild-haired lunatic, but this guy is a ITN News at Ten and Panorama journalist (you somehow just know he’s a member of the NUJ).
Please note the tagline for his blog is “a blog for truth, justice and peace.” Jesus!
Maybe John Reith could take a break from his ‘how-many-angels-can-fit-on-the-head-of-the-pin’ discussion, over on the Imus thread, and give us his professional opinion on whether or not he thinks this guy is representative of professional BBC journalism?
http://alanhartdiary.blogspot.com/2007/04/if-alan-johnston-is-dead-who-really-was.html
“There is a case for saying (repeat a case) that the party with most to gain from Alan Johnston’s permanent disappearance was Israel. It would not be the first time that Israeli agents had dressed as Arabs to make a hit.
If Alan Johnston is dead, it’s my hope that the BBC at executive management level will rise above its fear of offending Zionism too much and allow its reporters (Frank Gardner and Jeremy Bowen are second to none) to make a full, thorough and honest investigation.”
Radio 4 story delayed for BBC man
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6564825.stm
“The BBC has postponed the broadcast of a story about western hostages being executed in Iraq as concern grows for missing BBC journalist Alan Johnston.
Weddings and Beheadings was due to be broadcast on Radio 4 this Thursday.
But it was pulled from schedules after Palestinian militants claimed to have killed Mr Johnston, who was abducted at gunpoint in Gaza City on 12 March.
I don’t think the Beeb is having a Nick Cohen moment. Still in denial about the chop-chop RoP if you ask me…..
Al anhart is so despicable he makes even the run of the mill IBC reporting look like thorough and honest reporters on Israel and the Middle East.
The fact he singles out farouk gardner and abu bowen for particular praise says it all.
I have a suggestion for Al anhart.
I propose that he, farouk gardner and abu bowen all go and stay in the Gaza strip for a while, without armed guard or Israeli protection.
Then they can test the veracity of his absurd claims with the inevitable kidnap that will follow and see who really is to blame for the kidnapping of Johnston.
Even fatah and hamas were and are not suggesting that the Israelis have taken Johnston (they have made such suggestions in the past about other events but even they know how ludicrous this suggestion is).
We should have offered bowen, gardner and hart to Iran, we’ve definitely missed a trick.
Thank you Natalie for your comments.
Thank you Natalie for your comments. However they are too little, too late.
The reaction here to the abduction of Alan Johnstone is sad but entirely predictable. It is amusing and ironic to me that Natalie has had such difficulty in reasoning with her fellow posters. Fairly typical of B-Bias.
Some of the opinions and conspiracy theories are of course ludicrous.
You are a pathetic and diluded group of people, but attacking the BBC makes you feel big.
Well, I’m sure you know best, Bob. But at least we can spell.
It is amusing and ironic to me that Natalie has had such difficulty in reasoning with her fellow posters. Fairly typical of B-Bias.
Some of the opinions and conspiracy theories are of course ludicrous.
Bob | Homepage | 17.04.07 – 10:50 pm
I don’t think Natalie has had any difficulty – it’s called respectful debate and interchange of ideas – you should try it sometime.
What conspiracy theories Bob?
I would like to emphasize the importance of a previous comment on this thread by an anonymous (at 17.04.07 – 6:45 am), which was so mildly stated as to go virtually unnoticed.
It deals with the BBC’s repeated statement that the group claiming to have murdered Johnston, Tawhid and Jihad, is previously unknown. For instance here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6562217.stm
But the commenter shows that the BBC itself has numerous times reported on groups by that name.
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Tawhid+and+Jihad++site:.news.bbc.co.uk&hl=en&start=100&sa=N
Most famously it is the group headed by Abu Mussab al Zarkawi, whose Iraq operations included the kidnap and murder of Ken Bigley. Zarkawi was Jordanian, not Iraqi. After his demise, he was replaced by an Egyptian.
Then, a group with identical name also took responsibility for several terror bombings in Sinai, Egypt.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4769263.stm
I should think there is room for investigating those various Tawhid and Jihad groups, and whether they are connected, especially since the Jordanian/Egyptian connection keeps turning up. Not a million miles from Gaza and the West Bank.
The question should at least be asked, but instead the Beeb washes it under the carpet by pretending the group is previously unknown. In other words, they take the risk of covering up for the murderers of their own correspondent. Why?
Surely, the Beeboid who wrote that copy had heard of this “previously unknown” group. If not then they must have the YTS trainee writing the important world stories.
If he/she couldn’t find out more details about them from the BBC’s own site(!!!) then they are also unfit to work in a £3bn/yr outfit with multiple fact checking layers!
So, that leaves us with a common theme for this blog – pro-Muslim bias. They’ll cover up for their Islamonazi friends at all costs and never learn the lessons from events like this or the shooting of Frank Gardner.
None of the above reflects well on the BBC.
Can I just make it clear that THIS Bob has NOTHING to do with the moron above?
PS – that is, I am the Bob whose URL does NOT take you to some BBC web-page filth
In other words, they take the risk of covering up for the murderers of their own correspondent. Why?
Anat | 18.04.07 – 6:22 am
Because they don’t want to antagonise Tawhid and Jihad in the hope that Johnston is alive and that the group can be persuaded to release him.
That’s understandable. But, knowing the BBC, they will continue to handle Tawhid and Jihad with kid gloves even if they have murdered Johnston. That fits in well with the BBC’s unwritten rule of never saying anything negative about Muslims, regarding Islamic terrorists as a tiny minority of Muslims to be described as militants and playing the appeasement game.
But it seems the BBC has seriously miscalculated by publishing the Johnston story so widely and with such commitment. Now the terrorists, as they indicated in their warped statement, have a convenient excuse for their terror – i.e. the world has poured out its support for Johnston while “ignoring” the plight of Palestinians in Israeli jails.
I agree that the “pressure” the BBC put on the last few days was probably counter-productive.
Let’s face it, if you’re a knuckle-dragging, misogynistic Islamo-fascist then appeals by the likes of Kim Ghattas aren’t really going to cut any ice with you.
This thread has been fascinating reading. Apart from Bob the Moron, that is.
The thing is, I agree with Natalie. Several of my best friends are deeply pro-Palestinian (a statistical inevitability these days), but were they currently being held by a Palestinian group which claimed to have killed them, my response would have nothing to do with their opinions. ‘Oh well, they were asking for it’ would not be among my thoughts. Why? Because Natalie is spot-on; in a democracy, we are entitled to hold wildly differing opinions and world-views, and for that entitlement to have any meaning, for that society to remain healthy and genuinely democratic, we should not hold the murder of someone with whom we agree, to be of more consequence than the murder of someone with whom we do not.
But I also agree with the other point of view too. To bring in a slightly over-the-top metaphor; Goebbels did not, as far as I know, kill anyone but himself. But he had as much blood on his hands as anyone who pulled a trigger or emptied those blue pellets through the hatch. Don’t get me wrong: Alan Johnston is no Goebbels. Alan Johnston has to be more careful with his words than Goebbels did! But Alan Johnston did whitewash Palestinian criminality, he did paper over the deep moral abyss at the heart of the Palestinian project, and he did attempt to win our sympathy for a people whose idea of statehood amounts to an average of one rocket attack per day against Israeli civilians, and who voted into government one of the most ideologically revolting murder squads currently in existence.
Maybe we can compromise, because I think Natalie is right. But let’s keep our sympthies to ourselves – the outpouring of Diana-style public sympathy is nauseating at best, partly because it so often takes the form of praising him precisely because of his Palestinian sympathies.
We would not want to be in Alan Johnston’s position right now, and we should apply the golden rule here: I hope Alan Johnston is alive and unharmed, and is released soon, along with Gilad Shalit. If he is, I hope he has realised what a malicious fool he was to demonise Israel, to excuse Palestinian violence, and to make light of the Palestinian ‘kidnapping craze’.
i’m surprised you bbbc bloggers don’t have more sympathy for the radical palestinians…
after all, aren’t they a bunch of marginalised extremists, consumed by hatred for an institution they see as overbearing and illegitimate?
don’t they have an unshakeable belief in their own twisted theories, to the extent that anyone who disagrees with them is labelled “the enemy”? [Bryan | 16.04.07 – 11:12 pm]
haven’t they dehumanised themselves and their enemies to the point where murder can be tolerated?
jb – 2 out of 10 for rhetoric, 0 out of 10 for facts. Tired stuff indeed.
The Palestinian extremists are hardly ‘marginalised’ – they are the pets of the world’s media, and have umpteen special UN committees and bodies devoted solely to their cause. How, please, are they marginalised? By the withholding of Free Western Money from their murder-squad government? Oh, boo-hoo!
How are the beliefs found on this website ‘twisted’? If it is twisted, for example, to believe that the BBC is institutionally anti-Israeli, then why is the Corporation spending hundreds of thousands of pounds of our money keeping the contents of the Balen Report secret from us?
This site tolerates murder? That’s a disgusting and ignorant thing to say. The truth is this: there was a debate on this page about sympathy and empathy. 1 comment out of 70 expressed something unpleasant. 1 out of 70! Obviously that must represent the consensus opinion of this site then!
If this is the level of your analysis, you’re hardly worth wasting time on.
But you’re right; heaven forbid that a group of people who are forced by threat of legal action to PAY for the BBC should be allowed to express here some opinions of where they feel the Corporation fails to abide by its side of the deal!
JB – I’m sorry, but I just re-read your comments, and they become more comical each time. What a clown.
Nobody was ‘dehumanised’ – one commenter actually went as far as to assert what most of us feel: that Alan Johnston is a human being made in the image of the Creator, entitled to the same life and protection that any of us are.
Palestinian radicals actually murder real people. Contributors to this site, on the other hand, HAD A DISCUSSION about Alan Johnston in which a large number of the comments express sympathy for the suffering on someone who is our political opposite: therefore we and the murderers are morally equivalent?
I gave you 2 out of 10 for rhetoric in my first response. I think I was over-generous. You’re a moron, your comment was childish and fatuous, and, incidentally, expressed not even a tenth of the sympathy for Mr Johnston that has so far been expressed by the B-BBC commentators.
gharqad-tree | 18.04.07 – 12:42 pm
thanks for your marks out of 10. i’m sure most of your co-extremists would think you too generous.
Mr. Johnson [sic] didn’t put bombs with his own hands, but he put out propaganda and excuses for those who did. Why should anyone feel sorry for someone like that? imli | 16.04.07 – 2:48 pm
I reserve my sympathy for the innocent victims of terror
Biodegradable | 16.04.07 – 4:11 pm
are just a couple of examples of the general attitude of the bloggers here. ambivalent towards murder? or tolerant? it’s a fine line. but to me, they’re certainly unpleasant views.
i take your point about ‘marginalised extremists’ – perhaps that better describes bbbc bloggers than it does radical palestinians.
gharqad-tree | 18.04.07 – 1:10 pm
yes, thought you might have to re-think your marks out of 10!
I reserve my sympathy for the innocent victims of terror
Biodegradable | 16.04.07 – 4:11 pm
are just a couple of examples of the general attitude of the bloggers here. ambivalent towards murder? or tolerant? it’s a fine line. but to me, they’re certainly unpleasant views.
jb | 18.04.07 – 1:13 pm
No ambivalence at all – all my sympathy lies with the innocent victims of those ‘crude, homemade rockets’ filled with ball-bearings and fired from Palestinian administered territories, that land indiscriminately in Israel, often among women and children, and those Israeli soldiers kidnapped on Israeli soil while defending their people from attempted mass-murder.
I have no sympathy for those who befriend psychotic murderers and then find themselves their victim.
Tolerant?
No, sorry. Some things should never be tolerated; kidnapping and murder are two, but you and others like you consistently tolerate murder and kidnapping when the victims are Jews.
I find your hypocrisy and self-righteousness more than unpleasant.
Biodegradable | 18.04.07 – 2:18 pm
red rag to a bull, i know, but would you mind explaining where i have displayed ‘hypocrisy and self-righteousness’? and i’d love to know where you get this gem: ‘you and others like you consistently tolerate murder and kidnapping when the victims are Jews.’
nowt like a broad-brush approach to dismissing all those who may disagree with your politics, eh?
is this your position: kidnapping and murder are ALWAYS unjustifiable, but you have NO SYMPATHY for johnston?
i’m sure you’re more than capable of the sophistry necessary to reconcile these two views, but the bottom line is that you (and others like you) seem unable to disentangle your politics from your feelings of empathy and sympathy as human beings. as such you have, as i said, dehumanised yourselves and those who you consider “the enemy”.
jb – an entirely predictable shame that you failed absolutely to address any of my points.
There is nothing unpleasant about reserving sympathy for the innocent victims of terrorism. What is unpleasant about that? bio is entirely right and quite unambiguous about it – murder and kidnapping ‘should never be tolerated’.
jb – Alan Johnston has been so keen to whitewash the sickness running riot in Palestinian society that he wrote an article specifically to make light of kidnappings in Gaza. He said that the kidnappings were “ironic” and comical, that they went against Palestinian nature, and that the greatest danger was that your kidnappers would “feed you to death”. In writing those words HE showed a total lack of compassion and empathy for people who must, during their ordeal, have been utterly terrified. HE failed to take THEIR plight seriously, and used his privilage as a journalist to try to convince the rest of us to think the same. Where was your outrage then, on behalf of kidnap victims? Given all of that, there is a kind of tragic irony in what has now happened. That is what is under discussion here, and if you cannot see the difference between that and morally approving of murder and kidnapping then your reading is clearly unhindered by the baggage of critical thought.
You’ve called me an ‘extremist’ – based solely on the words I have written in this and my previous comments, please explain how you have the nerve to call me this. Please be specific, give me examples of my extremism! When I called you a moron, I detailed my reasons at length. Please show me the same courtesy 😉
My point STILL stands – bloggers and commenters here have expressed more sympathy for Alan Johnston than you have. Indeed, the article on which this thread is based is one specifically insisting on sympathy for Mr Johnston’s circumstances, a fact which you conveniently ignore.
By the way – as sympathy for Mr Johnston is not your reason for posting (you haven’t said a word about him, after all), it must be that you are a crusader against internet bigotry in all its guises; could you please forward us links to the condemnatory comments you have left on those websites which are already suggesting that Mr Johnston has been killed by the evil Israelis. I’d love to read your condemnation of that hatred and extremism. I’m sure you don’t reserve your anti-bigotry campaign solely for those of us who exercise the right to discuss the way the BBC spends OUR money in its news coverage, do you?
Alan Johnston made light of the ordeal of kidnapping, and painted Palestinian kidnappers in a friendly, bumbling light. Are you calling him an extremist?
No, you’re not – you call ME an extremist, despite my stated desire to see Mr Johnston and Gilad Shalit released unharmed and alive, very soon. You label the whole site extremist, and murder-tolerating because of two cherry-picked and misinterpreted comments following a post expressing sympathy for Mr Johnston’s plight.
Surely you can do better than that?
jb – just read your challenge to biodegradable:
is this your position: kidnapping and murder are ALWAYS unjustifiable, but you have NO SYMPATHY for johnston?
I know it wasn’t addressed to me, but there is no logical fallacy here. An example: Peter Sutcliffe is attacked with a pen and blinded in one eye by a fellow prisoner. Do we approve of violent physical attacks in our prisons? Do we tolerate them? NO. Do we feel sympathy on a personal level for Sutcliffe? NO.
It’s that simple. And no, I am not comparing Alan Johnston to the Yorkshire Ripper! I’m just saying, a man who excuses and belittles Palestinian kidnappings in his articles doesn’t have the right to much sympathy when he is kidnapped himself. And at the same time, we absolutely condemn his kidnappers and possible murderers. We do not apprive of or tolerate his plight. But sympathy is an entirely different argument.
Remember, jb, if we seem to be rather lackadaisical about a Palestinian kidnap victim, Alan Johnston taught us how.
would you mind explaining where i have displayed ‘hypocrisy and self-righteousness’? and i’d love to know where you get this gem: ‘you and others like you consistently tolerate murder and kidnapping when the victims are Jews.’
You display ‘hypocrisy and self-righteousness’ in your attitude to my views. Your insistence that we must be compassionate even towards those who would murder us given half a chance.
Your tolerance of murder and kidnapping of Jews is clear in the absence of this kind of debate, and indeed the constant news coverage being given to Johnston, which has never been given to any other victim, ever.
is this your position: kidnapping and murder are ALWAYS unjustifiable, but you have NO SYMPATHY for johnston?
kidnapping and murder are ALWAYS unjustifiable, I have VERY LITTLE SYMPATHY for Johnston.
I have never said I would approve of his death, from the start of this saga I have said that I am indifferent to his fate – I have never said anything like “he deserves what he gets” – I have said that if the worse is true then it would be ironic, not that it would make me happy or that it was just.
… the bottom line is that you (and others like you) seem unable to disentangle your politics from your feelings of empathy and sympathy as human beings.
That is exactly what makes me (and others like me) human beings.
I suggest that somebody who does not differentiate between perpetrator and victim is the one who has lost his (or her) humanity.
My “Nick Cohen moment”, the incident that made me question my long held left wing, socialist/humanist views, was when somebody I’d previously respected told me they could see no difference between the cold blooded, and cold hearted murder of Leon Klinghoffer and the targetted assassination of Ahmed Yassin.
Can you see the difference?
Remember, jb, if we seem to be rather lackadaisical about a Palestinian kidnap victim, Alan Johnston taught us how.
gharqad-tree | 18.04.07 – 3:22 pm
Bravo!
:+:
Missing from the Wikipedia entry for Leon Klinghoffer are the following facts:
He had survived the Holocaust.
He was suffering from terminal cancer and diabetes – the cruise on Achille Lauro was intended to give him some respite in his last days and weeks of life.
In the days leading up to his murder the terrorists denied him his medicine.
Bio, it might seem at first glance – especially to someone of jb’s mindset – that your reference to Klinghoffer is way off topic. But of course, it’s not.
Here’s why: ask Alan Johnstone whether he approved or disapproved of such an act, and I have no doubt he would absolutely condemn it.
But that’s just the thick, bloody end of the wedge; the thinner end includes propaganda, and hate-speech, the kind of things that permeate Palestinian schoolbooks and media, for example.
How far along the wedge towards murder would we place, for example, armed kidnappings by masked men?
Personally, I would place it pretty far along the wedge.
The unbelievable (actually scandalous) fact is that this BBC correspondant actually wrote a semi-apologetic, whitewashing article, (as I keep saying), claiming that being kidnapped at gunpoint by masked men in Gaza was really nothing to worry about.
So while, on one level, we can be sure Alan Johnston would certainly condemn the murder of Leon Klinghoffer, the fact is that he is already so enmeshed in the Palestinian message, so far up the wedge, that he does not truly condemn armed kidnappings, on the basis that ‘the boys from the Brigades’ were bored or unemployed.
(I’ve been bored and unemployed from time to time. I’ve never kidnapped anyone using an automatic weapon, and if I did, I wouldn’t expect any BBC correspondant to dismiss the terror felt by my victim.)
If Alan Johnston were more thoughtful, he might take stock and see there is a continuum, one that runs from the verbal demonisation of Israel and the whitewashing of its enemies, through armed kidnapping and hostage taking, right up to the cold-blooded murder of an elderly and dying holocaust survivor in his wheelchair.
I can only repeat: the horrifying thing is that Alan Johnston was so naive (let’s be generous here), that he not only wrote an amused apology for the kidnappers in Gaza, he even included a mocking description of the over-reaction of one journalist who thought he was about to be kidnapped.
So Bio – thanks for reminding us what this is truly about. And it puts into perspective the insanity of those who accuse Israel of having taken Mr Johnstone, on the basis that Palestinians would not benefit from the murder. If they can shoot a dying man in a wheelchair, such Public Relations niceties must be of little concern.
gharqad-tree:
Bio, it might seem at first glance – especially to someone of jb’s mindset – that your reference to Klinghoffer is way off topic. But of course, it’s not.
It sprang to mind because I felt that in jb I was dealing with the same touchy/feely moral equivalence that claims that all human life is of equal value and all violence is to be condemned, while refusing to recognise that one violence is aimed at the total destruction of a people and the other is a neccesary defence against the former.
When I pointed out to that ex-friend that while Sheik Yassin had devoted his life to promoting and plotting the destruction of the Jewish people, Leon Klinghoffer had survived one attempt at genocide and since led a life in which he had raised a family and done no harm to anybody.
That ever-so-human tree hugging humanist asked me how I could be so sure that Klinghoffer had harmed nobody during his life. The extent to which he was prepared to go to justify Jew hatred continues to shock me.
By the way, another fact not mentioned in the Wikipedia entry for Yassin is that previously he and other Muslim leaders forbade women from becoming suicide bombers on the grounds that at the moment they exploded their body parts would be exposed to the view of men to whom they were not related.
Yassin passed a fatwa which overruled that in the name of killing Jews.
For those who haven’t read it, here’s the Alan Johnston piece on “Abductions in Gaza”
For those who haven’t read it, here’s the Alan Johnston piece on “Abductions in Gaza”
I think this shows har far the BBC have sunk – after Johnston’s abduction, the BBC highlights his writing, an example of which downplays kidnapping in Gaza.
Most organisations might be so embarassed that they try and hide such an ironic reference, but the Beeboids probably didn’t see the irony.
Fed to death indeed! Let’s hope that Mr Johnstone and Gilad Shalit do re-emerge heavily overweight after their ordeal.
biodegradable, something you’ve written there sounds very familiar to me. I also have a friend who follows this line of reasoning, and sometimes his inversions of logic are truly illuminating. Here is a paraphrasing of one recent conversation with him, in the aftermath of ‘Israel’s War against Lebanon, and Defeat by Hizbollah’:
F: I read a good defence of Hizbollah in the London Review of Books yesterday.
ME: Oh, a defence of the people who murdered scores of unarmed non-combatants at a community centre in Buenos Aires?
F: They did?
ME: Yes, they did. Nasrallah has said that he doesn’t mind if the Jews settle in one place, as it will save Hizbollah having to go after them around the world.
F: (thinking hard) I suppose you could justify on the grounds that Jewish Community Centres are where those who provide financial and other support to Israel are likely to meet and socialize.
ME: (dumbstruck and horrified) On that basis I could justifiably blow up any Pakistani corner shop with a collecting jar for Muslim charities, as some muslim charities have been shown to finance terror groups. Your logic there is horrifying.
That was the end of the conversation, and only later did I realise that he had done what liberals always do: he took Nasrallah’s words, ignored them, and heard instead what he thinks Nasrallah must have meant. Nasrallah didn’t say he wanted to kill Israelis, or those who support Israel. He said he wanted to kill Jews. My liberal friend cannot process this information, and substitutes instead the ‘given’ that Nasrallah’s group are engaged in a nationalist struggle, not a sectarian campaign of murder against Jews. That truth would be uncomfortable: if an enemy of Israel turned out to be BAD, my friend wouldn’t know what to think, he’d self-destruct. Easier then to ignore the words of people Nasrallah, or Hamas, or Abbas, or Ahmedinejad, and reassure yourself that really they’re just fighting for the same human rights and justice that you are.
Most organisations might be so embarassed that they try and hide such an ironic reference, but the Beeboids probably didn’t see the irony.
Anonymous | 18.04.07 – 5:46 pm
It is fairly well hidden now. In the first few days after his disappearance it was one of the “Related” links, perhaps in the belief that it really was nothing much to worry about and he’d be freed quite soon, as other journos had been up until then.
gharqad-tree:
biodegradable, something you’ve written there sounds very familiar to me. I also have a friend who follows this line of reasoning, and sometimes his inversions of logic are truly illuminating.
You’re evidently more tolerant than I am. Once somebody spouts such rubbish to me I have no further interest in talking to them, and I’m unable to shrug my shoulders and just talk about something else.
One acquaintance tried to tell me that there were “moderate” members of Hamas – I asked him if they were similar to moderate Nazis.
He seemed offended and told me I was an Islamophobe.
Of course he’d not bothered to read the Hamas Charter, and even if he had he would have discounted its importance.
This same person claimed that we were to blame for WW2 because we’d treated Germany badly after WW1.
Biodegradable,
It’s not so much tolerance on my part, it’s simply the fact that I cannot afford (and have no desire) to lose two of my best friends. I also hold out the hope that the truth might one day become clear to them. Until that happens, I accept that we disagree strongly on an important issue, and we try never to discuss it. I have, from time to time, believed stupid things myself. As a teenager I believed the Holocaust was at best an exaggeration, and that it was physically and logistically impossible for it to have happened as described. A Jewish friend – instead of ending our friendship – lent me Martin Gilbert’s book, The Holocaust, and I wasn’t fifty pages into it before I realised with absolute shame that I’d been an idiot who had no idea what I was talking about.
We all have our Nick Cohen Moments, and I have to be patient until my friends have theirs.
That said, one college friend made it impossible to continue our friendship. When I tell you that the last time we spoke was on the morning of September 12th, 2001, you can guess what kind of thing he was saying…
don’t they have an unshakeable belief in their own twisted theories, to the extent that anyone who disagrees with them is labelled “the enemy”? [Bryan | 16.04.07 – 11:12 pm]
jb | 18.04.07 – 12:18 pm
I tried to relate this “analysis” of what I wrote at 11:12 pm to what I actually wrote, but came up with a blank. Must be jb’s towering intellect.
Its very encouraging that the well reasoned posts here get such irrational, snide responses from BBC apologists such as pj. I’ve gone through all the posts here and I’m sure I know what any fair-minded person would make of them. To add my ore to things, I dont welcome Mr Johnston’s kidnapping (and for me M/s Solent’s Contribution is completely nonsensical – the sort of self-regarding preening one expects BBC journalists to indulge in), but I’ve got as much sympathy for him as I did when George Galloway got attacked by some lunatics on the outer fringes of Muslim extremism. If he has been murdered I sincerely hope that for the sake of his immortal soul he had a ‘Nick Cohen moment’ beforehand.
hippiepooter, with all due respect I think you’re being rather unfair to Natalie.
I don’t agree with her notion that failing to find compassion for Alan Johnston hands the terrorists some kind of victory. For me it’s very simple: the terrorists win ‘victories’ when they achieve their aims – be it the release of Palestinian terrorists from Israeli jails, or the intended killing of Jews or Westerners. I don’t believe they would give a rat’s ass for whether or not contributors to B-BBC feel compassion for Alan Johnston, and they would surely be disappointed rather than elated to discover that we simply didn’t care about his fate one way or another. After all, taking someone hostage kind of presupposes that his absence will be a cause of upset to others; that’s the whole point of kidnapping! So in fact, we hand more of a victory to the terrorists when we sympathise with his plight.
That’s simply the logic of the thing as I see it. But that doesn’t lead me to want to show Natalie the kind of heavy-handed abuse you have aimed at her. If it is ‘self-regard’ to want to adhere to compassion for a human with whom you disagree, one who is in mortal danger, then I applaud Natalie’s self-regard while disagreeing with her reasoning.
Talking of self-regard, hippiepooter, you ‘sincerely’ hope that if Mr Johnston has been killed that he had ‘for the sake of his immortal soul’ a Nick Cohen moment? You should take a little look in the mirror, and maybe spot the beam of self-regard in your own eye before lecturing others for the specks in theirs. Firstly, if he’s dead, he’s dead. Isn’t that terrible enough for you? And as for his immortal soul, that’s a matter between Alan Johnston and G-d. It has nothing to do with you, and you have no right to presume that a man’s immortal soul may be in peril unless he conforms to your opinions of one particular earthly conflict. You have no idea what G-d will find in the soul of Alan Johnston, and to come out with that after lecturing Natalie for preening self-regard is quite remarkable.
hippiepooter – I apologize. I regret writing that last paragraph. It was unnecessarily combative, which wasn’t what I intended. I just think that, whatever our differences in this world, we have no right to pronounce on a man’s soul. We have human eyes, not G-d’s eyes, and the things that G-d will reveal in our own souls may horrify us more than we can imagine now.
And on that note, I shall leave this discussion of eternity and divine judgement; it seems to have strayed beyond the remit of a site dedicated to the issue of bias in the British Broadcasting Corporation! My fault, and I apologize 🙂 Goodnight all.
gharqad-tree – are you any relation to the other tree that used to post here?
Thanks for clarifying the issues with incisive insight.
Hi Bryan – no, I never used to post here. I’ve been reading the site for a year or two, but I don’t remember that I ever posted before. I tend to try not to, as I get carried away and say things that I regret. Especially re Israel. As you can see above, far from clarifying anything with incisive insight, I end up discussing ‘the soul’, like an undergraduate bigmouth… arguing over things that are utterly irrelevant 🙂
You are too modest and self-effacing, gharqad-tree. Great to have you on the team, even if only as a lurker.
hehe – thank you – I hate to be a lurker, and I enjoy contributing. Just do me a favour and tell me when I’m talking crap or going over the top 🙂
I’ve enjoyed reading it too:)
biodegradable writes: ‘Your tolerance of murder and kidnapping of Jews is clear in the absence of this kind of debate, and indeed the constant news coverage being given to Johnston, which has never been given to any other victim, ever.’
my god, i’m sorry, i didn’t realise it was my personal responsibility to initiate a debate on the murder and kidnapping of jews, and by not doing so i was tolerating it. i obviously have a far more important station in life than i ever realised.
if that’s your concept of toleration, i think i have an arguable point in saying that you tolerate murder when you say you have no sympathy for the victim. (oh sorry, i see you changed that to ‘very little’ sympathy. such sophistry!)
same goes for you brian. after saying you regard johnston as ‘one of the enemy’, you go on to make comparisons with zarqawi, then conclude: ‘I think it’s stretching it a little to feel sympathy for people who are pure evil when they meet their end. Relief, yes. Sympathy, no.’ it was a little ambiguous whether the ‘pure evil’ was directed at johnston as well as the others… i suspect it was.
and gharqad-tree then makes a ludicrous comparison with goebbels. [however you might couch it in caveats, or say that it was hyperbole, i think this counts as a little bit of an extreme view, don’t you?]
but gharqad-tree, apologies if i misrepresented you, i presumed that you shared the paranoid-extremist views of most of the rest of the posters here. you know, the one that goes… the bbc is staffed by drones/clones who are indoctrinated into a pinko-leftie view of the world and let loose to thrust this agenda on the unsuspecting licence fee payer in some kind of weird conspiracy to turn the public into pro-palestinian, eco-friendly metrosexual lib dem voters.
and i can’t help thinking that, despite all your noodling about and discourses on sympathy etc, you’d all be much more comfortable just saying it like AntiCitizenOne 17.04.07 – 2:42 pm.