Last night’s Any Questions panel spoke for multiculturalism, women, and the Arab Spring. The solitary male member, if you’ll excuse the expression, was Jehangir Malik OBE, UK Director of Islamic Relief, who was roped in to opine on behalf of the Arab World.
The panellists still spoke elegiacally of the Arab Spring, which, for them still heralds the dawning of a new age of enlightenment. It’s just as if they’d never heard of the disconcerting rise of Islamist groups like the Muslim Brotherhood, or listened to any of the creeping doubts that are beginning to emerge everywhere but in their own consciousness. They seem a bit like the befuddled fugitive who hasn’t discovered that the war he’s been hiding from for the last decade ended years ago.
In this vein, they expressed undiluted optimism over the Arab Spring, and deep joy at the diversity and multiculturalism in the UK.
The thing that was omitted from the discourse was, of course, Islam.
Diversity is undoubtedly beneficial. I myself am diverse. Variety is the spice of life, and variegated skin-colour, racial origin, a multiplicity of traditions and customs are all jolly good ingredients when added to the mix in correct, proportional measure.
But political correctness ignores the essential truth, which is that the benefits immigration might bring to the UK must outweigh and not overwhelm the very things that make it an attractive destination. There comes a point where those who ‘flock’ from far and wide to partake, begin to resemble tourists who, by sheer numbers, wreck the beauty and tranquility of the tourist attractions they visit, robbing them of their attractiveness in the process. Before people recognise what is happening, too many are profiting from the status quo, so don’t want to admit there’s a problem.
The Islamic faith may well be beneficial in potentially volatile Islamic regimes which are kept on an even keel by people we consider tyrants and despots. They control populations by fear, as do religious leaders who stunt the imagination by persuading vulnerable people that this life is a mere preparation for the next.
Refusing to get to grips with the fact that a functioning democratic society requires the population to be reasonably free from constraints that interfere with the ability to think, is a huge handicap. That’s what political correctness does to us. It won’t permit open discussion, and explains the puzzling tyranny of the P.C. edict, which proclaims ” to be good, one must be non-judgmental.” That leads to moral equivalence, which in turn might explain the frequent appearance on our screens, courtesy of the BBC, of Abdel al-Bari Atwan. Mr. Atwan has been endorsing last week’s attacks near Eilat in which Israelis were murdered.
‘The Eilat operation, as I see it, corrected the course of the Arab revolutions and refocused them on the most dangerous disease, namely the Israeli tyranny. This disease is the cause of all the defects that have afflicted the region for the past 65 years…’
CiFWatch, the watchdog website that monitors the Guardian’s increasingly overt antisemitism, is concerned about Atwan’s frequent contributions to Comment is Free. The Guardian represents the intelligentsia, many of whom have travelled so far to the left that they’ve gone right round the back and out the other side, having picked up radical Islam along the way, like a burr on your woolly jumper. How did that happen? It’s inexplicable to many of us, and apparently to them. At least, I haven’t heard a convincing explanation so far.
The BBC’s fondness for hiring Abdel al-Bari Atwan is clear. He’s never off our screens. Opining on this and that, his eyes bulging preternaturally, he’s regarded as an authority on all things Arab. Springs, Uprisings, and Resistance? Ask Abdel. His speciality is demonising Israel and fantasising about it being nuked.
Is he impartial? Is he sane? Are his prejudices balanced on the air, in the short term or the long term, by opposing views? Are his views given undue respect and credibility?
Why does the BBC give inflammatory, racist, antisemitic and warmongering individuals the oxygen of publicity on programmes like Dateline or Newsnight? We know the BBC is mischievous and likes a bit of a barney for the ratings. But this is serious. They might want to try and make sparks fly, but sparks have a habit of getting out of control if they’re given free rein.
Any Questions? Here’s one. Does the panel think the BBC is after a conflagration?
A caller has phoned in to Any Answers to self-flagellate over our colonial past, and has invented a new despot named ‘Dugaffi.” I despair.
Beautifully written and observed again Sue.
Like our other Israeli-supporting friends on this blog, we can see where the tangled roots of The Arab Spring etc will end up.
The leftLib axis just want the peace of the graveyard…and filled with Jews or people who stand by them if at all possible.
All those elephants in the room truly stink the place out and make it impossible to see anything..but the BBC and its Guardian/left shapeshifters/ projectionists insist on telling us that theywill get it right …this time!
Lose the Shah and get the Ayatollah, lose Saddam and get Ahmadinajadh, lose NajyBulla and get Bin Laden…it`s as if we have no recent history to speak of, when it comes to Islamic “good intentions” and helping to “spread democracy”.
Didn`t bother with this lot-Jude Kelly anyone?…usual seat warmers for MPs away on their beanos. With Stourton as well to do the sheep shearing, it was going to be as bland a gabfest as usual.
Usually the phone-in is better..but of late, the BBC seem to be filtering out the decent folk that might have an opinion that isn`t wanted by the editors
BBC at it again, talks about rally in Tripoli and show’s people waving Indian flags.
While you might call this a “technical mistake” what happened to the integrity of journalists who we (especially those of us in third world) are told to worship as highly intelligent, unbiased deeply caring people? Why not say “hmz something wrong here”? When its obvious the wrong flags are being waved? Instead these two morons just parrot out their pre-made script, bias and line of thought even when lies are being shoved in everyone face including theirs.
Janaka – Occam’s Razor says it’s because they are so dumb they couldn’t even tell it was India and not Libya, flags or not.
I seem to recall Terry Wogan making an observation on the acumen and intellect required to be a newsreader; this is his QED.
Sue – I think you are great… But in my humble opinion your post is somewhat tortuous in its argument – sorry!
I must also take issue with your comment on diversity being inherently a good thing. That’s simply not true. As I’m sat around the pub table tonight with my white, male, middle-class heterosexual mates, the quality of our group will not be improved if we are joined by a Sudanese ‘doctor’ over for the week to conduct a few female circumcisions on South London’s kitchen tables, even though we will have become more ‘diverse’.
A real-world example is the comparison of the behaviour of the post-tsunami monocultural Japanese with the feral scumbags who recently ransacked multicultural Britain’s cities because the Police couldn’t be everywhere at once.
(This post is meant in a thoroughly positive, engaging-in-the-debate type way, rather than being smart arsed).
Don’t be silly. Diversity is a good thing.
If there was no diversity, I don’t know about you, but I wouldn’t be here, for a start.
Your white male middle-class heterosexual mates sound dull, and of course diversity doesn’t necessarily have to involve Sudanese f.g.m. doctors. The stranger joining your table at the pub may be obnoxious, but he is unlikely to be practising sixth century Islamist rituals. He’ll be someone like Lenny Henry, which I agree would be pretty intolerable.
I think diversity is good, and as I said in my original post, it’s the proportion that is all wrong, the reluctance to adapt, the hostility emanating from certain immigrant communities, people who take without contributing, people who are limited by a religion that is antithetical to everything Britain stands for. These are the problems that PC prevents us from admitting, let alone tackling.
The Japanese are uniquely accepting and philosophical, but that’s cultural. We were monocultural once don’t forget. There were riots in the fifties with teddy boys, and the sixties with mods and rockers, so riots are not exclusively immigrant-related. The British don’t always accept ill-fortune with good grace, apart from during the blitz, where overwhelming disasters can bring out the best in civilised people.
Not in monocultural Islamic states, though, eh?
I say this in the interest of debate.
Sue
For the record, “riots” in the 60’s and 70’s were basically big fights. Not marauding crowds burning shopping centres.
Many of us would prefer a basically monoculture – with some additions, moderate-scale immigration of people who actually add to our country. Not Labour’s result of excessive crowding out of the indigenous population, with many of the immigrants bringing no skills or abilities and not having any interest in assimilating.
And so far under Cameron, the same damn results are still happening.
John,
The ‘riots’ in the 60s and 70s were on a smaller scale than the recent ones, but so was everything else in those days. They still managed to smash things up and stuck knives into each other.
“Many of us would prefer a basically monoculture – with some additions, moderate-scale immigration of people who actually add to our country.”
That’s not much different to what I said in my original post.
Instead of “monoculture,” which sounds rigid and insular to me, I’d prefer to think the of the ideal as a fundamental sharing of objectives, i.e. health, prosperity, British values and aspirations such as concern for other people, freedom of speech etc. What we call Judeo-Christian values, perhaps.
I can’t see how anyone who read my post, which was supposed to be critical of the politically correct proponents of unconditional multiculturalism that spoke on the AQ panel, could come away with the impression that I was in favour of any such a thing.
What I approve of is the accepting attitude that led British communities to tolerate influxes of people like my grandparents who fled from Eastern Europe. The British allowed them to assimilate, while still hanging on to some of their traditions and quirks. (Which I myself and many of my generation have left behind.)
When people talk of their concerns over immigration, politicians are still afraid to admit what kind if immigration they’re afraid of, for fear of being thought racist or bigoted. They skirt round the issue, pretending it’s Polish workmen we’re angry about, when all the time it’s Muslims who hate us and everything we stand for, except the generosity of our unsustainable welfare system.
Sue – my issue is with the idea that “diversity is a good thing” as emphatically as you say.
In your response to my earlier post you dismiss the bad diversity (fgm) and replacing it with good diversity (Lenny Henry). But the former is a real and growing reality of modern Britain as a direct result of diversity as social policy; it cannot be dismissed.
As for my mates sounding dull, I believe you have fallen into my trap of defining them by certain characteristics (it was a little scurrilous of me, but it was purely for the purpose of rhetoric): what if I told you that within my group there was a fighter pilot, a nightclub promoter based in Sydney, an A&E doctor who lives in a teepee, and a Goldman Sachs investment advisor based in New York? The fact that they are all middle class, white and heterosexual does not detract from their inherent quality as a group of people!
The experience of the better off is that mass immigration has brought cheaper nannies, cheaper home extensions through Polish builders, and a greater choice of restaurants and take-aways on the high street. To everbody else it means schools where English is a minority language, reduced access to social services such as housing, fewer jobs, and, to be frank, your town and community turning into a third-world shit-hole despite having millions in taxpayers money thrown at it. The former things are very nice to have for those who can partake; the latter is leading to societal collapse.
So do you still think “diversity is a good thing”? 😉
Unfortunately JA the prevailing ethos of 60’s leftism is that huge swathes of our population have now been made completely unemployable. Doesn’t excuse just accepting this and bringing in East Europeans and sundry who know how to work (not overlooking of course the quantities who come here to parasite), but the measures needed to remedy this suicidal failing is, currently, unpalatable to a population broadly brainwashed with BBC Gramscism.
What is needed of course is that people on long term unemployment where there are enough examples of people who have looked for jobs and got them in a reasonable space of time should be given 6 months to find a job or lose *all there benefits.
Till that happens employers are going to view our debilitating level of immigration as a necessity.
Oh, and if these indigineous parasites and British born foreigners decided to ‘teach us a lesson’ for doing what’s needed, then we’d have ample cost effective prison space awaiting them where they would be sentenced to hard labour in and out of the prison walls.
Quite what catalyst that is going to lead to this seismic reversal in 40 years of ‘death by leftism’ I dont know. One can but hope and pray and stay true, to what Sue rightly calls our ‘Judeo-Christian values’.
Sue, your piece was beautifully written, and you captured a tremendous balance in the way you expressed your views on the imported aspects of British diversity, but RCE made his disagreement in all good faith, and again you get touchy when someone does so?
Artistic temperament?
Artistic temperament?
Not sure about that. I didn’t think I sounded especially touchy, but I did feel that I was being misunderstood.
Thank you for the kind comment anyway.
Yes, I think RCE misunderstood you too. But his monoblanco pub mates do sound a dynamic bunch of chaps.
Some racist bigots are OK with the BBC, some homogeneous and monocultural societys are OK with the BBC AS LONG AS THEY ARE NOT THE UK. Twatwan the racist bigot is a favourite on BBC dateline, never challenged, never told his race hatred is unacceptable, never contradicted and always fawned over. No wonder then that these racist bigots have become so confident.
Only Western nations and societys are somehow not allowed to have a homegrown nationalist culture of their own and must be ‘enriched’ with the dregs of the 3rd world and the social corruption of 3rd world values and ethics. Its OK for some nations to retain a religious and racial identity as long as it doesnt include the UK. BBC hypocrisy in action.
The liberal attitude is deeply patronising of third world cultures, in fact of any culture other than Western liberalism.
It assumes ,although it is unstated, that liberalism is the natural condition of man and beyond argument. It is as natural as breathing.
So other cultures are allowed to express their differences in the confident belief that in time they too will be just like “us” the liberal intelligentsia.
We, the untutored stubborn natives of this country need to be guided onto the true path and stamped on hard when expressing deviant thoughts.
The BBC is only fulfilling it’s historic role. The trouble is it is a collective delusion based on an idealistic but unreal view of human existence.
The latest manifestation is the projection of unreal hopes on to the Arab spring.
Imagine the BBC during the French revolution. Explaining and apologising for Robespierre even as he was bring dragged to the guillotine.
Rather sneery take on PG Wodehouse and his role in doing equivocal radio broadcasts from his POW camp.
No mention though of the Stalin(and later Mao) apologists that swarmed all over the airwaves long after they could possibly have had an excuse for doing so. They and their descendents have done rather well out of siding with the Communists…Polly Toynbee and the Milibands are just a couple of names that spring to mind.
Funnily enough Polly was on the very next piece in her dismissal of the private sector having any role whatsoever in putting right what she and her kind have screwed up so wrong.
Her dad…indeed Lord HawHaw too-would marvel at the shameless nature of the daughter of the Tribune(Hampstead and Highgate Branch)…and wonder how the working class are so bloody stupid as to PAY the fragrant fop to be so patronised and insulted on a daily basis.
At least Wodehouse was under duress-and he could write-and had a mind of his own!
Yes, Sue, the political ethos of ‘Any Questions’ is such that the only acceptable answers must be of the ‘politically correct’, and ‘multiculturalist’ type only.
In practical terms, the adoption of sich a hegemonic ideology for Britain, an ideology which BBC-NUJ pursues daily at our expense, means:
1.) mass immigration, without limit on numbers;
2.) ‘cultural relativism’, such that e.g. the tenets of Islam cannot be criticised on the INBBC.
The following articulate viewpoint on multiculturalism is censored out of existence by BBC-NUJ:
Paul Weston (2007):
http://paulweston101.blogspot.com/2007/04/multiculturalism-merits-debits.html
“The Path
to National Suicide
An Essay on Immigration and Multiculturalism”
( a 100 page essay by Lawrence Auster*, unread at BBC-NUJ – includes material on ‘diversity’.)
http://jtl.org/auster/PNS.pdf
* Lawrence Auster was not on the list included in BBC-NUJ Radio 4 series on ‘Iconoclasts’, but then he is not of the ‘political left’.
Sue. I don’t enjoy your posts because they tell a terrible truth – Anti-Semitism is alive and well in the UK and the USA. And it’s no longer the preserve of the Right as in Hitler’s Germany: it’s now the preserve of the Left disguised as pro the poor downtrodden Palestinians. Any of these self-loathing creatures will tell you the don’t hate Jews, they hate the state of Israel. Sorry it’s the same thing. I say God bless Israel and all she stands for.
Israel, population around 7m, only genuine functioning democracy in the Middle East, Arab countries surrounding population estimated around 350m in total, all the wealth oil confers, cause of all their problems, yes, you guessed it, Israel.
The BBC and the antisemitic Left are evil, in the same way those who manned the gas chambers were. They drape themselves in the Palestinian colours, as though that renders their moral bankrupcy invisible.
Time people in this country knew who their friends are, and it is not the metropolitan public-teat sucking Leftist elite.
ROBERT BROWN; Well said LC, now put your post in a relevant CIF related topic in the Guardian,every word, and if it is put up, watch, and enjoy the manic vitriol from readers, some may agree with you, but unlikely. Every word you posted is accurate, but i fear we are preaching to the converted on this site. Get out and troll these leftist rags as long as you are able.
And I wouldn’t recommend ‘diversity’ immigration into Israel from the surrounding and political uniform hostility of Islamic countries.
Rory – Hitler was not of the right, he was a Socialist (National Socialist = Nazi Party). He was admired by many Palestinians during WWII, and they shared many collaborative relationships (although in the interests of being fair and balanced I should add that many saw German victory as a means of ending British rule, so it is not necessarily correct to say all Palestinians at the time were Nazi sympathisers, even though the anti-Semitism amongst some was just as virulent).
The left, and the BBC in particular, have spent the last 50 years trying (successfully) to change the narrative so that Hitler and Mussolini are associated with the right. It is a denial of reality; fascism is a school of socialism, period. Moreover, many of fascism’s ideas and beliefs are readily identifiable with those of modern socialism, examples can be seen in Cameron’s ‘Conservatives’, the good ol’ BBC, and Obama’s presidency – for a thorough run-down read Jonah Goldberg’s ‘Liberal Fascism’.
Any-hoo, anti-Semitism has never been the preserve of right or left; it is a most remarkably persistent racism that transcends politics, and the British Labour Party has a much better record of supporting Israel than the Tories.
IMHO, the reason Israel attracts such hostility is because it is successful. It proves that there is no geographical reason for the neighbouring countries to be shit-holes; so there must be another reason… Any guesses?
I could go on… but like you say, God bless Israel.
RCE,
You’re a fan of Israel, and you don’t think diversity is a good thing? 🙂
Sue – sorry, I wrote my longer post above before I saw this; as I said there I don’t agree with your emphatic assertion that it is always a good thing and that ‘diversity’ always adds quality.
Can you develop your question about Israel and diversity a bit more please? Are you asserting that Israel is a multicultural society? If so that’s a very interesting idea invoking some challenging notions of race, religion, genetics, political systems etc!
Searching through my article – and my comment, for exactly what made you construe : ‘diversity is always a good thing’, from my language, which I hoped was English (plain) I could only find: a) “Diversity is undoubtedly beneficial.” and b)“Diversity is a good thing”
Whether diversity is beneficial or detrimental is a matter of degree, and, of course ultimately, of whether the minorities are willing to share the ideals and aspirations of the indigenous. So as it happens we don’t particularly disagree after all.
Unlimited mass immigration, enforced multiculturalism as a doctrine, moral equivalence, these are all things I criticise in my article, but somehow you concluded that I was advocating them. I just don’t know how that happened. Was it something I said? The tortuousness?
So calling your mates in the pub white male middle-class heterosexual was a trap, eh. They were diverse after all!
Next you’ll be telling me one was female, and the other was a red-headed Eskimo living under a bridge in Totten-Ham. I can’t see why your doctor lives in a teepee. Is he the one who does the F.G.M.? (That was supposed to be a joke, as was my facetious reference to Lenny Henry)
I know nothing of nannies or home extensions through Polish builders, (unfortunately,) but the scenario you describe seems more like the downside of mass immigration, rather than an argument against the principle of diversity.
And your colourful mates are a testament to diversity too.
Yes, when applied according to the instructions, diversity is a good thing, and yes, the population of Israel is diverse. Multicultural, even.
Sue – both a. and b. are unequivocal and unqualified assertions that diversity is only good and never bad. That is why I took issue.
The diversity of my mates in the pub is antithetical to the diversity as prescribed by social policy. The latter assumes certain qualities (race, gender, sexuality etc) to be more worthy than others – and it appears from your suggestion that we are “dull” that you do too!
It’s PC doctrine, innit.
a) and b) are unqualified, either by an ‘always’ or a ‘never.’ If you want to add them, that’s nothing to do with me.
I could equally insert ‘some’ before ‘Diversity’ in a) and b) if we’re inserting qualifiers after the event. But why should ? I don’t need to, because the rest of my article explains that I am not in favour of ‘the prescribed social policy’ and I don’t support unlimited immigration, and approving of (some) diversity in principle i.e. “non overwhelming” is not the same as saying unequivocally that diversity is always good and never bad.
You’re determined to ascribe things to me which are in your head, and if that is due to lack of clarity on my part so be it, and I’m very sorry. I try to explain myself as clearly as I can.
I said they were dull before you told me of your mates’ diverse credentials, after which they seemed much less dull.
Enough already, eh?
Sue – you are right that the two statements are clarified in the rest of your post; I apologise if I seized upon them too readily, even if I don’t agree with them as they stand alone.
Keep up the good work!
🙂
ROBERT BROWN; Thank you RCE, i posted many times in the Guardian about the nazis being left-wing, Hitler himself stating on occasion that he was a socialist in speeches. This was denied by many posters, and when i pointed out that this was a fact, and according to C P Snow, the ‘facts are sacred’, all hell was unleashed upon me. Just goes to show the mindset of some of these miserable leftists, dangerous idiots. I was eventually banned from commenting on CIF. Also the Express for pointing out hard, unpalatable facts, that they actually endorsed a few months later! You couldn’t make it up! Truth really is a curse to our leaders and press.
Rory,
I don’t enjoy my posts much either. But someone’s gotta do it.
Mr Atwan asserts that resistance is legitimate as long as “.. land is occupied and the people and holy places are humiliated”.
Well, that is what is happening in England by muslims, so on his own assessment, it is legitimate for us, the indigenous peoples of these islands to begin to resist the infiltration by unwanted muslim enemies. And if Mr Atwan was true to his words, he would agree and lead his muslim brothers back to whereve they originated. But that’s not in the muslim plan, is it? And of course the socialists in this country (with the guardeen and the bbc as their mouthpiece) are only too willing to assist in the invasion.
For BBC-NUJ:
‘Cranmer’ on anti-semitism in Britain:
“Anti-Semitism at St Andrews University ”
http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.com/
INBBC’s Jeremy Bowen is apparently annoyed that he has somewhat neglected his political opposition to Israel of late.
So what is his political line now?: – that Israel becomes more ‘democratic’, like the sharia-law inspired millions of Muslims in Middle East Islamic states, who want Israel destroyed. (His ‘Arab Spring’.)
“Arab Spring spells uncertainty for Israel ”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/9573523.stm
By the way, Bowen draws attention to the following in his article, but doesn’t criticise Islamic states for their attempted restrictions on his freedom of movement:
[Bowen, on the normalcy of Islamic ‘democracy’]:
“My passports say it all. Like most foreign correspondents in the Middle East I have two – one for Israel, the other for Arab countries.
That’s because some Arab states will not let you in if you have an Israeli visa.”
‘Security expert’ (?), INBBC’s Mr GATEHOUSE, writes sympathetically of Hamas and a Mr SISI (arrested by Israel, and charged with ‘hundreds of counts of attempted murder’):
“Israel, Ukraine and the mysterious case of Dirar Abu Sisi”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-14529749
Captured Hamas operative: Group ran military academy in mosques, was hindered by fighters who ran away or froze in fear
A lady that I know works as an interpreter with the police sometimes. She is often confronted with the situation that someone will bring their family to Britain, then immediately sign on (no doubt it is hard to find a job) and get more money because they have more family with them. They know how the system works.
It’s not her place to comment on this, but she feels the same pressure not to state what is infront of her very eyes. Mentioning this kind of scenario marks one out as a “Daily Mail reader” in some people’s view, and they stop listening.
Both sides in politics tend to fear the perceived fanaticism of the other. I tend to try and look for new words (always a good idea anyway, methinks) to describe Political Correctness, because it’s such a well-used phrase that people don’t listen when you use it. As I guess you all know, Guardian readers imagine a stereotypical Mail reader saying, purple-faced “It’s political correctness gone mad!”
When you say:
“But political correctness ignores the essential truth, which is that the benefits immigration might bring to the UK must outweigh and not overwhelm the very things that make it an attractive destination”
I wonder if many BBC/Guardian people are actually interested in the good of England, or the UK
It’s always an eye-rolling moment when one hears someone say “political correctness gong mad”. Its like saying “racism gone mad”. Both are intrinsic evils. One a perversion of equal opportunities, the other a perversion of patriotism.
An excellent piece, Sue and some interesting comments.
I shall be enjoying a bit of diversity myself this afternoon, listening to a brass band in St James’s Park. There will be people of every race and religion appreciating the music and behaving in a civil fashion.
Of course for those who really fancy a taste of the vibrant multicultural, multiracial society that our capital has to offer there’s always that peaceful festival of joy, the Notting Hil Carnival.
If you’re going make sure you wear the appropriate clothing.
Comfortable shoes, lightweight mac, a cap of some description….oh and a stab proof vest.
A non-‘UK Uncut’, not BBC-NUJ approved demo:
“The Stand: Christians for Israel”
http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.com/2011/08/stand-christians-for-israel.html
Iran’s Thug-in-Chief: no room for Israel when Palestinian state is established; Iranian foreign minister threatens “crushed bones for the Zionist regime”
-reported by FOX NEWS, but not by INBBC.
Ahmadinijad’s statement should be read together with UN statehood bid ‘threatens Palestinian rights’ http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=415804
Intriguing in the comments is the number who consider the PA’s UN bid as a Zionist trick.
It’s not ‘UK Uncut’, so unreported by BBC-NUJ:
Berlin: Islamic supremacists march against Israel
An alternative to INBBC’s anti-Israel Bowen:
“Israel: Glenn Beck’s Revealing Visit”
Caroline Glick
http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.10259/pub_detail.asp