What We Voted For?

Some say Cameron’s infatuation with Turkey is pure political expediency. Others say ‘I told you so’.
Some say his comment about The Real Islam shows naivety, and others think that these remarks are also part of a convoluted political expediency, some kind of strategical move in a long term end game which is in the national interest. Or in other words, he doesn’t really mean it.
But why did he have to make those remarks about Gaza? They have unleashed yet more virulently antisemitic comments from those who were only waiting for the go-ahead. So the gloves are off.

People who support Israel are horrified.

What is the BBC’s role in this? The BBC news webpage is dumbed down to such a degree that it’s difficult to tell. These days they talk to us as though we are a primary school class. Remedial.

The BBC has played its part through years of selective and biased reporting, and now we’re beginning to reap what they have sewn. Harvest time.

Rape by Deception.

Israel faces a perplexing conundrum. How to absorb potentially hostile citizens into the population without a peep of discrimination. Until Arabs give up vowing to eliminate Israel it won’t go away. We face a similarly intractable problem, albeit on a different scale. You may or may not believe that Israel is no more racist than any other country, and very much less than many.
The BBC perpetuates the theme that Israel is a racist state.
Being labelled racist is as bad as being labelled rapist. Another story that has been subjected to the BBC’s selective editing is the ‘rape by deception’ case that is doubly newsworthy as it concerns twin topics at the pinnacle of newsworthiness, race and rape.

An Arab Israeli has been sentenced to 18 months in jail. He was convicted of the curious crime of rape by deception. An Israeli woman discovered that the status of the stranger with whom she had had consensual sex was neither Jew nor eligible bachelor, as he had apparently led her to believe; he was an Arab. So she went to the police, as you do, or in other countries, probably don’t.

The BBC presents this case on the web page insinuating it’s a clear demonstration of Israel’s racism. The very idea of sex with an Arab is tantamount to rape, they imply. Only in Israel could there be a law against rape by deception, only in Israel could there be a jail sentence for pretending to be a Jew, and only an Arab could be convicted of this crime, because if he was a Jew pretending to be an Arab, no-one would care.

In Israel this case has caused a stir too. Many Israelis think this law is ridiculous. That’s a bit like in tolerant racially harmonious Britain, where many Brits find certain laws ridiculous.
However, the story is many faceted. The BBC has spun it their way, and Edward Stourton on the Sunday Programme was taken by surprise when he set out to prove, in best BBC fashion, how racist Israelis are. He bit off more than he could chew when he interviewed Daily Mail’s Jerusalem correspondent Matthew Kalman. Off he goes:

“Let’s be absolutely clear about this Matthew, there’s no question that the sex was consensual, it’s simply because he lied about being Jewish that he is now convicted of rape, is that right?”

“Yes Ed, the Israelis are so disgusted by the thought of having sex with Arabs that they have made a special law that interprets it as rape, the racist bastards” he replied.

Only joking. He didn’t really say that at all. But Ed was in his stride, and continued:

“And in this case it wasn’t that he lied about his wealth or anything of that kind, or indeed the fact that he was married which I think that he was, it was the fact that he lied about being Jewish when he was in fact an Arab.”

Hang on a minute, said Matthew, it wasn’t like that at all. He’s married with two children. That’s what the court emphasised, and that was what led to the conviction. But the law is controversial, and many Israelis, including the mainstream Israeli media sympathised with Mr Kashur the accused, and because of their support he now feels more a part of the country than before.

“Ahh!” said Ed, with a little wounded yelp or two. But undaunted, he persisted with the racist theme and asked Matthew to tell us all about the right-wing racist proposal for an oath of allegiance.

However, Matthew Kalman took the wind out of Ed’s sails a second time, patiently explaining that there is a perennial debate about how to define the rights of non Jewish minorities in Israel, and the new citizenship law might not even contain anything about an oath of allegiance.

There are several other non BBC articles about this case, and the fact that the deception was about the man’s race means it has a racial element. The usual suspects seize upon this and present it as a straightforward case of racial discrimination, but it’s clearly much more complicated. In simplifying this and packaging it to appeal to the audience-it-prepared-earlier, the BBC is only doing what comes naturally. Many aspects of the case are concerning, not least of which was the woman’s odd behaviour. But in this country some feminist ideas about rape have led to situations where a woman can allege rape if she simply regrets what she did last night. It’s a perplexing conundrum altogether.

Inquiry Query

Last year Richard Tait, head of the BBC’s Editorial Standards Committee was to chair an investigation into allegations of inaccuracy and bias by Jeremy Bowen. But Mr Tait had already proclaimed on air that he had complete confidence in Jeremy Bowen. So the outcome seemed a foregone conclusion.

One of the committee of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict, Christine Chinkin, made no secret of her bias against Israel, yet she was considered fit for purpose and remained in her post.

But three wrongs don’t make a right, and I hope the oleaginous ‘uman rights lawyer Clive Stafford-Smith’s objections don’t overturn the appointment of Sir Peter Gibson to lead the inquiry into whether the UK has been complicit in the torture of terror suspects.
Kim Howells and Stafford-Smith, sounding alarmingly like Leslie Phillips, can be heard talking to John Humphrys here.

What? They’re accusing Clive of doing it because he’s trying to get his client Binyam Mohamed off! How very dare they!

Baroness Doesn’t Open New Mall

I’ve been watching Baroness Ashton being chaperoned around Gaza by John Ging. He has been showing her the wonderful schools run by UNWRA, which teach children wonderful things not about hatred, and Baroness Ashton has been a good baroness and hasn’t talked to Hamas.
Something about what I said the other day makes me suspect someone’s being economical with the actuality. Could these UNWRA schools be not quite what they seem?
“there are posters of martyrs on the walls of the schools and in the homes of UNRWA staff. Worse still, UNRWA workers are essentially members of Hamas:”

Furthermore, the BBC hasn’t breathed a word about the new shopping mall that has been opened. I thought the Baroness could at least have been asked to perform the opening ceremony, but apparently not.
I guess that might have spoiled the effect of what the Baroness said, fighting back the the sobs. “Although Israel has eased the blockade, it still isn’t enough.

Let Political and media commentator Tom Gross take up the tale.

“UPDATE, Sunday July 18, 2010:
“Some journalists who subscribe to this list have asked me for a quote. You are welcome to use the following.

“On a day when (because EU Foreign Policy Chief Baroness Ashton is in Gaza) the BBC and other media have featured extensive reports all day long on what they term the dire economic situation in Gaza, why are they not mentioning the new shopping mall that opened there yesterday?

“When leading news outlets mention the so-called humanitarian flotillas from Turkey, why do they omit the fact that life expectancy and literacy rates are higher, and infant mortality rates are lower in Gaza than corresponding rates in Turkey? Have they considered that perhaps the humanitarian flotillas ought to be going in the other direction, towards Turkey?”

To Ban or not to Ban

Ed Stourton asked for our views on the burqa. I didn’t know he cared, but now I do, here’s mine.
I hate the burqa because it tells me that the wearer hates me. On the other hand, it’s hilarious. I’m against banning it because using the law as a sticking plaster to cover a self-inflicted wound is too little too late.

Anyway, banning the burqa would give them yet another thing to gripe about. Better to simply stop pandering to an ideology that we should never have encouraged in the first place. Stop building special toilets and prayer rooms and don’t put up with ridiculous anti-human cultural practices.

It’s daft to argue that it’s liberating to be free to advertise your ideological opposition to liberty. Waving banners saying “down with democracy!” is as pointless as campaigning against campaigning.

The ‘liberal’ pro burqa argument, that it’s no different to a hoodie or a crash helmet, a balaclava or a disguise, skirts round the issue. What makes us uneasy isn’t really our concern that the woman might have been coerced. Nor is related to claims that strict modesty regulations aren’t a genuine requisite of the amorphous mystery that people call ‘true Islam,’ or the ‘real’, or the ‘continuity’ Islam I’ve just invented.

No it’s the simple fact that we don’t like anyone flaunting alien beliefs. We don’t like people wearing SS uniforms, specially Prince Harry. We don’t like it, but it’s not illegal. If I want to wear a burqa to a fancy dress party, let me, please.
There’s no law against parading around in jackboots and swastikas. A law’s unnecessary because Hitler’s ideology is considered unacceptable. If you do go round dressed as a Nazi you limit your credibility as a member of HRW or some such. If it took a whole new law to indicate that we see burqa wearing as a symbol of defiance and perfidiousness and that Britain disapproves, it would be more of a sadness than a triumph.
Tell Ed Stourton and the BBC to stop self-hating and resume normal service as soon as possible. Back to core values. Then it might not be necessary to resort to banning the burqa by law because people might just not want to wear the wretched garment.

Lost in Translation

In days of yore the BBC acquired a reputation for excellence. The world switched off their local news organs, suspicious they were being fed propaganda. They turned instead unto the BBC and they saw that it was good.
Fastforward and into reverse. It has been said that Al Jazeera is now more impartial than the BBC.

The lag between the BBC itself realising this and the media savvy public doing so has yet to be measured. What if Jeremy Hunt’s threatened cost cuts jolted it into reality?
When the BBC is less fascinated by anything Israel does, and stops poring over every fart and speculating about its malevolence we’ll know that time has come. Currently they struggle to report the intricacies of Palestinian politics, other than divulging that Hamas and Fatah are enemies. Hamas being baddies and Fatah moderates. But there’s much, much more to tell.

One year ago, August 11th 2009, Tom Gross urged those who work in the media to read his Mideast dispatch. Who knows whether Jeremy Bowen or any of the BBC Middle East staff subscribe to his blog or have even heard of Tom Gross. Judging by their output, it seems not.

At that time Tom Gross was writing about an eye-opening conference in Bethlehem attended by the Fatah General Assembly which, he said, was:
“woefully underreported in the Western Media. Instead, the BBC, for example, has been running yet more distorted reports about Israel last week, deluding themselves and their viewers that Fatah is a moderate party committed to compromise”

Mahmoud Abbas has persuaded the Western world that he is a moderate and a seeker of peace; but when he speaks in Arabic his rhetoric is somewhat different. He promises his Arab speaking followers a different kind of peace. “Resistance until the Zionist enemy is wiped out.” Even if such drastic measures were successfully accomplished, the hostilities between Palestinian factions and various other warring Islamic parties make peace unlikely. We should be told.

President Obama’s faltering support of Israel has emboldened Abbas further. One year on, things are as bad as ever. Abbas is still saying one thing in English and another in Arabic, which you’d think someone from the BBC’s generous fount of Arabic-speaking employees could kindly pass on.
The BBC is so busy criticising Israel that we don’t get to hear about matters which might broaden our attitude, such as the persecution of Syrian Kurds. Tom Gross said:
“I only wish the BBC and others would devote a fraction of the substantial resources they employ in the Middle East to not only scrutinize every little thing Israel does but to pay a little attention to the hundreds of millions of people living in the 22 dictatorships (and one partial democracy, Iraq) in the region around Israel.”

The BBC is forever urging Israelis to “talk to Hamas” and they spun the Ipsos poll to look as though British Jews agree. If every single British Jew did support direct unconditional talks with Hamas, and unconditional surrender to Fatah, or mass self-flagellation, it wouldn’t be any wonder. Unmedia-savvy British Jews probably rely on the BBC to tell them what’s going on just as much as un-savvy British non Jews, atheists, rastafarians, the socialist workers party, pole dancers, the women’s institute and Uncle Tom Cobbley, probably Abu Hamza, and all.

So Mr. Hunt. Get the scissors out.

Let’s Call the Whole Thing Off.

Constant repetition of a word or phrase can transform it from eloquent to hollow. However perfectly it encapsulates a situation, over-use will render it meaningless.
Trotted out over and over again, words like vilify, delegitimise, illegal war, international law, apartheid, and many more, lose their impact; particularly when they’re bandied about willy nilly by people who have no idea whether what they’ve said is justified, appropriate or the truth.

Peace activist, humanitarian aid, war crimes, obstacle to peace, Palestinians. Nazi. Fascist. Neocon. We’re all trapped by these words.
We say antisemitism, you say Islamophobia; we say terrorist, you say religion of peace; we say Islamic, you say unIslamic; we say legitimate, you say illegitimate; we say Israel, you say Zionist entity; we say biased, you say balanced. Tomato, potato, potahto, tomayto. Let’s call the whole Jeremy Bowen off.

From Our Own Correspondent, fully transcribed online, so you don’t have to listen to the lisp or behold the glistening brow.
The BBC’s chief Middle East Editor expounds on the rift between Netanyahu and Obama, between Israel and America. There are certain things only your best friend will tell you, Bowen opines. Being a little cruel to be kind, Obama whispers gently to his good friend that he’s not standing for much more of this Jewish lobby malarky. The Jewish lobby’s convention centre in Washington DC is bigger than.. than… than …. a football pitch, Bowen declaims. No! several football pitches. That’s how powerful the Jewish lobby is.

Not for much longer though, he speculates. Impertinent Netanyahu with his lectures on the Arab-Israel conflict, his deliberate insults to the VP, his Homes for Jews in occupied Palestinian territories illegal under international law, and his attacks on innocent Turkish peace activists. Jeopardising peace on earth, provoking the Muslims with his pesky Israel. This can’t go on, Bowen predicts. No more Mr. nice guy. That’s what will happen; verily I say unto my listeners.

Jeremy Bowen and his ilk have coined a whole lot of phrases, some of them have become meaningless, and some were meaningless in the first place. Without a hint of self-examination or self awareness the BBC happily lets the middle east editor insinuate about powerful Jewish lobbies. No sign nor hint of a recognition that the BBC is itself an enormous great lobby. The size of… of…. of… thousands of football pitches.

Indigestible Poll.

Jonathan Hoffman and Rabbi Tony Bayfield were asked for their views on an Ipsos Mori poll about whether British Jews were in favour of Motherhood and Apple Pie.

They were.

What was the question Mori asked? Would you prefer Katkins, or this bowl of broken glass?

Nine out of ten cats prefer Katkins.
Evan Davis queried why British Jews who support Israel should be thought of as courageous. With OUR reputation, he winked?

Okay I’ll spell it out. Jews in Britain listen to the BBC, much like everyone else. Horns permitting. They might support Israel, they might have relatives there, and they might go there a lot. But curiously they might rely on Jeremy Bowen to keep them posted on how badly behaved Israelis are.
So, Evan, if they don’t admire Hamas and Hezbollah in quite the way the BBC and the Guardian do, they might need to be plucky.

“A study of more than 4,000 British Jews suggests that although most feel a strong affinity with Israel and strongly support its right to self-defence, a majority believe the country should swap territory for peace, and negotiate with Hamas. Rabbi Jonathan Bayfield and Jonathan Hoffman, vice chairman of the Zionist Federation, debate the importance of British Jews’ sense of identity.”


By the way, Rabbi Bayfield’s name isn’t Jonathan.

Why did the BBC run the story? Are they trying to make it sound as though British Jews want Israel to make yet more unilateral concessions for peace? Talk to Hamas? A missing word is conspicuously absent. Conditional. Good for Jonathan Hoffman for mentioning it.