Why Pakistan?
Some of you have questioned what Pakistan had to do with a post about Israel.
The fact you have to ask that answers your own question in a way….the BBC is nowhere near as concerned with the ‘illegal creation’ of Pakistan as it is with Israel.
Just why is the BBC so concerned about Palestinians but so relatively unconcerned about Indians in Kashmir or Bangladeshi history?
Muslims and their supporters claim Israel is an illegal ‘creation’ that shouldn’t exist, or be allowed to continue.
Israel was created in 1948 and recognised by the UN as a homeland for the Jews…and has ever since been forced to defend itself from Muslim attempts to destroy it which continue to this very day.
The BBC has made it a prime focus of its attention with a forensic dissection of any Israeli action and instant condemnation if, as it usually does, it meets with the BBC’s disapproval.
So important is the Palestinian’s plight that Mark Thompson believed they deserve special treatment from the BBC saying in a radio interview:
‘We provide a bridge to the world, a bridge to freedom, it is very important that the story of Gaza is told around the world.’
…..From that it would seen apparent that Gaza is not ‘free’ and must be freed….with help from the BBC building a ‘bridge to freedom’.
The BBC’s John Simpson said about the kidnap of BBC journo Alan Johnson in Gaza ‘…a savage blow aimed directly at people bringing news to you…stopping the flow of news from somewhere like Gaza is like tying a blindfold around the world’s eyes.’
What they don’t seem to have equal concern about is what is happening in Pakistan.
Why is Pakistan in any way comparable to Israel? Pakistan was ‘created’ in 1947 ….it was created as a homeland for Muslims…an ’Islamic Zion’ if you like. During its ‘creation’ over one million people died in fighting…and millions more fled, Sikhs & Hindus forced out whilst Muslims poured in. And note…inside India there are still millions of Muslims….whilst other religions are not made welcome in Pakistan.
Now the Jews were utterly homeless…with no land or country to call their own and so it was reasonable that somehow, somewhere they might found a Homeland. Conversely there is no justification for the creation of a Muslim homeland carved out of Indian territory….There are after all numerous Muslim countries around the world should anyone be in need of a Muslim society.
Curiously it is only Israel that is called an ’illegal creation’ that shouldn’t exist and not Pakistan.
Pakistan invaded the Indian region called Kashmir and has illegally occupied half that land since 1949, Pakistan has, as well as fighting several wars against India, sent numerous terrorist groups into India attacking important targets, Pakistan has over 200 terrorist training camps inside its borders, Pakistan created the Taliban in order to control Afghanistan and ensure India did not get a foothold there. The same Taliban that Pakistan still supports as it kills British troops.
And yet the BBC look the other way…towards the Jewish homeland for ‘newsworthy’ stories…..have you ever heard the BBC make a comparison between Israel and Pakistan when supporters of the Palestinians are being interviewed?….are they asked if they also think Pakistan is an ‘illegal state’?
The Muslim attitude might be summed up in this example…..Here is Inayat Bunglawala, once the media secretary of the Muslim Council of Britain. He has been criticised by the PCC and accused of being racist and anti-Semitic; he rails against ‘Zionist tactics’ and ‘Israeli oppression of the Palestinians’…..and yet he is someone who has absolutely no concern about the plight of fellow Muslims in Pakistan/Bangladesh: (in the comments at 0821…search ‘Inayat‘)
Inayat Bunglawala says it all with regards to conflict in Bangladesh:
‘I was born in the UK and am not Bangladeshi, so to be honest, I very rarely think about the 1971 war. I reckon it is of much more import to those of Pakistani/Bengali backgrounds than to me.
I do nothing whatsoever to bring justice to Muslims in East Pakistan. I have enough on my plate here in the UK.’
And yet here is his blog…..(Graphic photos)
Which says it all really about his priorities.
Spittoon suggests….
‘His statement is liberating and should be celebrated. It now frees British Muslims of their obligation to loyalty to the Hamas or Hesbollah or the Islamic Republic of Iran etc, in exactly the same manner as Bunglawala does, by saying these words:
I was born in the UK and am not Palestinian/Syrian/Iranian/Kashmiri, so to be honest, I very rarely think about Palestine/Syria/Iran/Kashmir.
By using this simple ethical argument, British Muslims who choose to, can now detach themselves from the insidious emotional blackmail and moral upbraiding which is used to force them to side with this or that national/territorial cause of other Muslims, simply because they were their co-religionists’
Now why does not the BBC ask such questions?
Bunglawala demonstrates an attitude all too prevalent amongst Muslims…one that the BBC doesn’t question…..when bombs go off in London and a Muslim suggests that this is because of the presence of British troops in a Muslim country the BBC interviewer never once questions that attitude….this gives a credibility to such a claim, a ‘received wisdom’ that it is hence ‘confirmed’ as correct and of course just leads to more bombs or Jihadists being recruited as they are persuaded of the justness of their cause…because the ‘Establishment’, in this case the BBC, fails to challenge them.
By coincidence Peter Hitchens makes reference to this in his latest Mail on Sunday column:
‘All I’m sure of is that the rentacrowd anti-Israeli protests are selective and disproportionate (Have the same people protested against Arab killing of Arabs on much larger scale, in several places? No. Why not? You work it out) .
Significantly, the refugees from the 1948 war were not allowed to settle freely where they chose in Egypt (or in any other Arab neighbour country), but were kept in cramped and squalid conditions in so called ‘camps’ (actually grimly permanent slums ), where their descendants remain. This seems to me slightly to contradict Arab propaganda in solidarity with, and in support of the displaced Arabs of the Palestine Mandate. As I have pointed out before, the other victims of mass ethnic cleansing of the 1940s – the millions of non-Muslims who fled Pakistan for India or the millions of Muslims who hurried the other way, and the millions of Germans driven (with British connivance) out of central Europe –were long ago resettled and given citizenship of their new states. The curious will have to wonder why it is in the Holy Land and nowhere else that the descendants of refugees still live in cramped penury and misery as citizens of nowhere. I have my own theory, but I won’t force it on anyone.’
The BBC’s supine acceptance of Muslim claims and justifications leads to more terrorism, grievance politics and division in society.
As George Entwistle has found out a lack of curiosity, a lack of the will to question and challenge, has consequences.
Mark Thompson told us that: ‘The BBC’s motto is ‘Nation Shall Speak Peace Unto Nation’ – the idea being that access to news, information and debate about different countries and cultures can ultimately help foster mutual understanding and tolerance.’
If only the BBC walked the walk as well as talked the talk.
Burying your head in the sand hoping not to cause a stir only ends up with more trouble later on…..in this case the ‘payoff’ is a radicalised generation of Muslim youth.
I’ve spent quite a lot of time in Pakistan and the educated elite largely understand the common fons et origo of their country and Israel.
But then the same educated elite have utter contempt for the rabble that bring chaos and violence to the streets of Peshawar and Gaza.
It’s quite interesting.
That is because those ‘in the streets’ are largely not well educated, without resources and easily manipulated.
Pakistan is different however due to the complicity of particular Indian leaders at the time of partition. To an extent it can be argued that the British took the opportunity that this internal dissent presented to carve India out into territories that met their own strategic ends, however this was only made possible because of powerful indigenous politicians who also gained personally from partition.
My personal view is that those politicans who allowed this to happen to India were traitors of the worst kind, and that the partition gave legitimacy to the idea of islam being entitled to territories in the subcontinent. In the absence of partition, its likely that islam would have eventually lost influence and become subsumed into the broader dharmic traditions that have been present in India for the last four thousand years.
It can be argued that Sikhism for example is an early foray into this type of religious melding, and represents an instance of a pattern that has manifested in India throughout history, with earlier joinings of Buddhism and Jainism into the Hindu (vedic) framework.
The creation of a hybrid islam that included dharmic concepts (and thus softened its ideology) is probably impossible now, as the presence of Pakistan and Bangladesh provide validation to islam being an original religion of the soil rather than an alien incursor that should have been melded into the rich tapestry of Indian civilisation.
Whilst I doubt that the BBC would ever agree with this perspective, I don’t think its fair to say that they are overlooking the reality in Pakistan whilst reporting on the situation in Israel in a deliberate fashion.
As a sidenote, it will be interesting to see how the subcontinent’s brand of islam will evolve compared to that in the middle-east. Muslims from Pakistan and Bangladesh are still from the same racial and cultural stock as the hindus in India (which is also a key differentiator when comparing to muslim incursion into Europe, where the incoming muslims are clearly alien to the indigenous peoples) and it will be instructive to see which way their loyalties will eventually fall – westward to Arabia, and the traditional heartland of Islam, or instead towards the dharmic wellspring of traditional Indian (hindu) civilisation.
I don’t think its fair to say that they are overlooking the reality in Pakistan whilst reporting on the situation in Israel in a deliberate fashion.
Interesting POV, but one which fails to mention that Pakistan is a relgious inspired intolerant state.
1) Since its Birth it has oppressed all faiths other than Sunni Islam, whereupon inside Israel that isn’t the case and all faiths are treated equally.
People may say this isn’t true, but the fact remains there is a Mosque at Temple mount, Now can the same be said of any holy Islamic site.
2) Pakistan has started 3 wars with India, committed genocide in Bangladesh and has blood on its hands regards Afghanistan. In all it has 10 times as much blood on its hands than Israel has.
3) Pakistan has an active nuclear weapons program which it has stated it is more than happy to use against India.
4) There is no such thing as human rights for all in Pakistan
Yet for all its failings the bBC affords Pakistan much more leeway and respect than it does Israel.
To be clear: I agree with all 4 points you make, and that its a bizarre fact of geopolitics that Pakistan is courted by western democracies despite its true nature as a failed state.
My main disagreement with the OP however is that I don’t think that the legitimacy of the formation of Pakistan is comparable to that of Israel. Pakistan was formed through wedge tactics employed by Indian politicians in pre-partition India, whereas the creation of Israel was largely an external imposition (of new settlers) onto Palestine.
One other side point, as you mention nuclear weapons – the key reason for India to develop nuclear weapons was to maintain a degree of defensive capability against China (particularly as it has lost all engagements with China since Independence). Pakistan latched onto the back of this as a reason for its own ‘deterrence’ capabilities, despite India publicly declaring a no first use doctrine. If India was concerned only with its Pakistani defence posture, becoming a nuclear power wouldn’t just be seen as counterproductive, but actually criminally stupid. Despite this, pakistani (and Indian) nuclear capability is usually discussed in the context of the other, rather than the reality that without nuclear deterrence, India would have a very difficult time maintaining its regional status in the light of chinese ascendancy.
The western press, and the BBC in particular, have never seemed to analyse either the rational for Pakistani nukes properly, or the extent to which they have been aided by other nuclear regimes. The one saving grace of them being the first islamic nuclear power is that they are still the sons of Indian soil, with a shared heritage and culture that goes back millenia. Whether that will be enough to maintain detente with India remains to be seen.
You’re wrong pounce (for once!): in your point (2) it should be a least 100x
Re point 1: I think there will indeed be Mosques at pretty well all Islamic Sutes.
The point made by Pounce is that Temple Mount is originally the main Jewish religious site. The fact that the calls by Jewish extremists to pull down the mosques there are ignored by the religiously tolerant Israeli government is in stark contrast to Islamic ones.
I think your final question has already become apparent: “westward to Arabia” and all that that involves.
I’m not yet convinced of this. Its only been 50 years since Independence, and whilst Pakistan has a great deal of animosity to India (kindled by its repeated defeat in conventional wars fought since then), it doesn’t seem to me that the islamists in Pakistan defer to leaders based in the middle east.
Theres a degree of cross border noise with Afghanistan and the taliban, but this is better understood as representative of historic homogeneity of the peoples that lived west of the Indus, and who were not really part of the ancient Indian civilisation.
I think as time goes on, we will see increasing tensions between the different strains of islam. What we understand (in the west) as islam is based on (saudi) Arabian traditions, and over time I suspect we will see Iran increasingly going its own way, and Pakistan also going its own way.
The current centre of islam being Saudi Arabia is heavily influenced by that country’s ability to project power based on its oil, and is not purely based on religious tradition.
Whilst the BBC (and other organisations) take great pains to paint islam as a pure religion, in reality its a political construct that uses the dress of religious tradition to justify its leaderships’ actions. As such, the centre of gravity is bound to shift as power shifts between different groups or nations.
Thanks Gunn, good reply. I still think the Pakistanis are more happy to follow the more vociferous/ irritable/ powerful/ offensive (as in attacking) Wahhabism than anything that may lay Eastwards.
Pedantry alert! It’s only been 65 years since independence.
The rise of literacy, mass communications and, in particular, the internet, the power of the petrodollar to finance mosques, propaganda materials and imams, and the influence of expat workers returning from the Gulf means that the days of exotic local variations of Islam have long since been numbered. A local tradition of Salafist Islam in what is now Pakistan goes back to the end of eighteenth century and is as old as Wahhabism, with which it shares common roots.
There are some things in defence of Pakistan and perhaps the reason why the BBC fails to highlight certain issues: the BBC may be so bias against Israel because of the constant terrorism with British Jews going to terrorist training camps to the return to attack their homeland: and the constant whining of the British Jewish community never condemning that terrorism, always using ‘but’ and saying it’s understandable; and all those northern towns where gangs of British Jews abuse, drug, rape and gang rape young white girls, come on, it’s obvious, after all the above mentioned and more can you blame the BBC (the BRITISH Broadcasting Corp) for highlighting those evil Joos?
I think this fits quite well:
Muslim Rules (taken from “Toddlers’ Rules”):
1- If I want it, it’s mine
2- If it’s in my hand, it’s mine
3- If I can take it away from you, it’s mine
4- If I had it a little while ago, it’s mine
5- If it’s mine, it must never appear to be yours in any way
6- If we are building something together, all the pieces are mine
7- If it just looks like mine, it’s mine
8- If I think it’s mine, it’s mine
9- If I give it to you and change my mind later, it’s mine
10- Once it’s mine it will never belong to anyone else, no matter what
Thanks for the warning of graphic photos :-). I’ll take that as your humble pie.
For Islam Not BBC (INBBC):-
‘Jihadwatch’-
“Pakistan frees Taliban jihadis, expects U.S. to release more Taliban members from Gitmo”
[Excerpt]:-
“The idea is that the Taliban will respond to these gestures of good will by laying down their arms, ending the jihad and joining the ‘peace process.’ On the other hand, maybe these released jihadis will return to the jihad, while the Pakistanis who released them laugh up their sleeves at the endless naivete of the Americans.
Which scenario is more likely?”
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/11/pakistan-frees-taliban-jihadis-expects-us-to-release-more-taliban-from-gitmo.html
but were kept in cramped and squalid conditions in so called ‘camps’ (actually grimly permanent slums ), where their descendants remain.
It seems pertinent to note that 19 of those camps are in the West Bank and 8 in Gaza.
I can’t make a general statement but I was amazed when I was in IDF uniform in the Eida Camp (~2000) in Bethlehem at the size and quality of the buildings and the number of BMWs we stopped and checked before they entered.
Is INBBC concerned now about Islamic jihad threat to Pakistani Malala?
For a while, INBBC seemed to be concerned about her, but now that there is a direct Islamic jihad threat to her life from Islamic jihadists in England, INBBC is quiet.
In contrast:-
‘Jihadwatch’:-
“UK: Muslims to denounce Malala as apostate for standing up to Taliban”
[Excerpt]:-
This will put the threat of being murdered over her head for the rest of her life. “Islamic hardliners announce fatwa on Malala Yousafzai,”
by Rob Crilly in the ‘Telegraph’.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/11/uk-muslims-to-denounce-malala-as-apostate-for-standing-up-to-taliban.html
Pakistan is a basket case…a rogue parody of a nation.
The likes of Bhutto and Zia are corruptible seed or wannebe western lickspittles, until election time…then out comes the Koran, where the Johnnie Walker used to be.
How the hell it manages to bluster its way through to US aid, whilst cossetting the likes of Bin Laden is beyond me.
Pakistan is just the sump for Afghanistan-which has no pretences whatsoever to being a nation state, unlike the dysfuntional weirdity that is Pakistan…where else would a Tariq Ali ever come from?
And INBBC is always happy to associate itself with IMRAN KHAN.
This Imran Khan:-
“Playboy-turned-Islamic supremacist Imran Khan threatens more Mumbai-style jihad massacres unless India surrenders Kashmir to Pakistan”
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/11/playboy-turned-islamic-supremacist-imran-khan-threatens-more-mumbai-style-jihad-massacres-unless-ind.html
Its about time the west got medieval on Islam and use all the traitors in the west who want to destroy western civilisation as cannon fodder.