Author Archives: Sue

The Cancer of Israel

By | | , ,
11 Comments

Politics explained in five simple stages.
1) An ideologically driven movement or individual gains power by charisma or by hook or by crook.
2) In order to enact the ideological vision effectively unity must prevail.
3) Dissenters are curbed or controlled by hook or by crook.
4) Suppressing the dissenters eventually overrides the original vision.
5) The situation boils over into another revolution.
The current chess game of world politics is complex, chaotic and intricate. Iran is governed by religious zealots who have persuaded their humble subjects to focus on the afterlife, thus undermining the deterrent effect of Mutually Assured Destruction. At the same time there is a significant pro-western element within the Iranian population, which has so far failed to get itself sufficiently organised to revolt.

As Iran’s specially singled-out hate-object, Israel is being tasked to preemptively deal with Iran. Israel is believed to possess nuclear weapons, although Israel has not confirmed this. The rest of the world hopes Israel will do the dirty work so that it can distance itself from the ensuing nastiness, while blaming Israel’s aggressive character and secretly sighing with relief.
The UK, the USA and Saudi Arabia will be particularly delighted, as long as they can simultaneously condemn Israel and kill the threats emanating from Iran, with one stone.

The BBC is grooming us for this. Renowned Israel-hater Leon Panetta, US defence secretary, has advertised his notion that Israel is nearly ready to strike, thereby purposely compromising any surprise element, should such a strike be thought feasible. The BBC has announced this several times.

But in any case the surgical strike option sounds like a fantasy. Even if Iran hadn’t managed to secrete its nuclear derring-do deep, deep underground and distributed the bits and pieces far and wide so that it would be impossible to take them out at one fell swoop, if Israel went ahead Israel would take massive hits from all directions through Iran’s proxies, and the rest of the Arab world might well jump on the bandwagon.

This isn’t at all simple. Con Coughlin has been investigating. He has found out what Michael Totten has been telling us for years. Iran’s proxy Hizbollah has been building up an extraordinary cache of weapons in Lebanon, aimed at Israel.

The one thing that all desperate failing governments will grasp with both hands, is a cause that is sure to unite disenchanted voters and squabbling underlings. That cause is the destruction of Israel. The coalition has already made its position quite clear on the Middle East. What with the impossibility of appeasing everyone at once it’s out of its depth and floundering. However much of a threat Islam is to us, it’s not impossible that a nuclear device could one day find its way into London, so perhaps the government thinks it expedient not to be too friendly to Israel. This particular government has never been that way inclined anyway, and never mind Obama’s iron-clad commitment..
The BBC has good reason to understand the threat Iran poses with its extended reach. Will it be influenced by Ayatollah Khamenei’s promise: “From now on, in any place, if any nation or any group confronts the Zionist regime, we will endorse and we will help. We have no fear expressing this.”
So if the BBC decides to go along with the Ayatollahs and protect its Persian staff by continuing its Israel-bashing agenda, constantly insinuating that Israel is a rogue state so it doesn’t matter much if it is annihilated, think 1930s.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

Revolution’s Children

By | | ,
5 Comments

Children of the Revolution BBC2 was interesting.
The three protagonists were young and camera friendly. Gigi, Ahmed and the Salafist were presented as young revolutionaries, striving for democracy, each in their own way.
Was it another stuck-in-a-rut documentary that amounts to the creation of more ‘here today gone tomorrow’ celebrities and little else? Normally the viewer is required to project a fantasy of their own onto some vacuous telegenic character, but the heroes and heroine featured here did not lack personality. There was bias, inevitably, but it was subtle, and the whole thing was thought provoking.

Gigi was already a well-known personality. During the ecstatic phase of the Tahrir Square uprising the Western media loved her. As the news unfolded she was pitted against Middle East specialists of stature, night after night, as a talking head. Part reporter, part political pundit, her opinions were credited with wisdom and maturity with what turns out to be a somewhat unrealistic optimism and overestimation. Subsequent events in Cairo forced this film to be more nuanced than expected.

“she was presented as well meaning but driven simply by naive youthful enthusiasm” says one commenter on the TV blog, when he felt she was really “a prominent member of the Revolutionary Socialists organisation in Egypt.”

Ahmed was originally motivated by frustration at being unable to find a job. Corruption kept him in an underprivileged position, and he wanted change.

The Salafist, whose religion, along with the Muslim Brotherhood, was illegal during Mubarak’s regime, was raring to go. Politics was his game and Sharia was his aim.

Gigi was more of a mystery. We were never quite told what her American education entailed, and how she came to be a revolutionary socialist. Was it youthful rebellion against the businessman dad she was prepared to dump for her politics? Was it a Vanessa Redgrave type self-hating hypocrisy? Was it altruistic idealism? Or maybe a quest for celebrity status?
Whatever it was, she couldn’t help appearing a tad deflated when it all went pear-shaped. Not to worry, off on hols, and a jokey text message: “Are you going to break the siege in Gaza?”
“No, I’m off to the beach” came the reply with a sheepish look to camera.

Frolicking in the sea, someone brought up the vexed question of bikinis. “They’ll never stop us wearing them in the new Egypt,” they agreed, as the Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafists were celebrating their overwhelming triumph in Egypt’s glorious democratic elections.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

The Sound of Breaking Glass

By | | ,
4 Comments

The genre ‘Rap’ (as in music) has a comical air, something to do with Ali G perhaps, and the more seriously it’s taken the more comical it becomes. This opinion is my own and does not represent that of the BBC.
So the BBC’s decision to ban the words “Free” and “Palestine” from the lyrics of rapper Mic Righteous, or muffle them with the sound of breaking glass, would be hilarious, if it wasn’t stupid and almost sinister.

Poor Mic Righteous had to chant:

“I still have the same beliefs
I can scream (broken glass)
Die for my pride still pray for peace,
Still burn a fed for the brutality
They spread over the world.”

However, the Beeb changed its tiny mind.

“The BBC Trust has decided it is not “proportionate or cost-effective” to proceed further with the complaint, but the original decision does not seem proportionate either. Indeed, had the BBC allowed the song to go through uncensored, it probably would not have been remarked upon (after all, it was two words, not a long political diatribe). As it is, this incident sends a very uncomfortable message.”

This arbitrary censoring and arbitrary uncensoring shows what a muddled thing this impartiality lark can be.
It would be a mistake to assume that every pro-Israel blogger automatically approved of this ban, just as it would be wrong to assume that they would support the BBC’s decision not to air the DEC appeal, never mind the ensuing brouhaha. Most people were ambivalent. (Glad they didn’t show it, but sorry the ban made the BBC look even-handed.) It’s not that they didn’t want people to donate to the cause – as if the ban would have stopped them – but they didn’t relish the prospect of more propaganda than necessary being thrust upon us via the BBC.

The BBC is a devious beast. Things like this are used to bolster claims that they don’t take sides, but in the face of the constant barrage of pro-Palestinian material we detail here day-in and day-out that’s patently ridiculous.

H/T Sarah AB from Harry’s Place.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

Taken For a Ride

By | |
18 Comments

Here’s a strange one. It puts me in an unusual position, and could look as though I’m about to defend religious fundamentalism. That’s not what I’m trying to do.
I had a message from someone who was offended by an item featured in the BBC World Service series “Outlook”.
Before going any further, I ought to provide some context.
In Israel there is a problematic issue that we might recognise. It echoes something that is happening here, although our problem could almost be regarded as the inside-out version of theirs. On the surface ours looks like the negative to their positive – in a purely photographic sense. However, this is a matter of ‘two sides of the same coin’ in an entirely superficial way, which I won’t go into here.

Our problem concerns British Muslims who have annexed areas in the U.K. such as Tower Hamlets, within which they prefer to abide by their own laws rather than the law of the land. Israel’s problem involves extreme, ‘ultra’ orthodox Jews, some of whom have annexed certain areas…. within which they wish to abide by their own laws etc. etc.

These situations are part and parcel of difficulties thrown up in pursuing the liberal ideals of a civilized world. How to reconcile differences while embracing principles of diversity and so on. As a secular, non-believing infidel, I find religious dogma hard to understand, let alone defend, so I have to put my prejudices to one side when making this case against the BBC – seemingly on behalf of the ultra orthodox community in Jerusalem.

They have decided for religious reasons to have their own religious bus service, outwith the public bus service. In the religious buses, women are supposed to sit at the back of the bus, for reasons of modesty. This seems like something from a bygone age, and is a jarring, unattractive aspect of religious practice. However, some would say, it’s their own affair, and if they want it, it’s none of our business. It may be an affront to women’s lib, but it’s hardly a matter of life and death, unlike some of the murderous practices that affect women in Islam. I mean the criminal acts that blight the lives of families that observe a primitive version of the religion of peace.

Back to the BBC. The message I referred to earlier was from a listener who had heard a one-sided interview, and was sore affronted. The interview was with a young secular Israeli woman who got on a religious bus to Jerusalem, and refused to obey the rules. She wouldn’t go to the back of the bus, and a bit of a kerfuffle ensued.
The Israeli press got hold of the story and made a big fuss. She became a cause célèbre and turned herself into Israel’s Rosa Parks, and great fun was had by all apart from the Hareidim. (the religious Jews in question.)

Imagine if something similar happened here. Say, for example a blind man and his guide dog were turned away from a ‘Muslim‘ bus or a taxi, the BBC would be all over the story. Wouldn’t they? Wouldn’t they? I think not. The Daily Mail, maybe. But not the Beeb. They would ignore it or bury it in some regional sub division of the interweb, so as to preserve social cohesion.

However the BBC liked the sound of the bus story, and picked it up. The woman was portrayed as the voice of reason. And quite right too, I hear myself say. She was the voice of reason! But wait. Hang on a mo!
There’s something the press are being suspiciously shy about.
The innocent woman who made the unfortunate mistake of stumbling into a humiliating situation but bravely refused to be intimidated, was not being completely open. She was being economical with the truth. She and the media were concealing the fact that she was a well-known activist and anti-religion campaigner, whose bus journey was more of a publicity stunt. In other words, she got her knickers in a twist as agent provocateur, in what was in fact an act of incitement in pursuit of her political opposition to orthodox religious practices. The bus wasn’t a public bus, but a religious special, which she knew perfectly well when she got on board.

Remember Ken O’Keefe to whom a whole edition of Hardtalk was devoted, after he pretended to be an innocent member of the aid convoy peacefully floating to Gaza aboard the Mavi Marmara? Were his antisemitic ravings or his Israel-bashing history mentioned? Not really. Or Sarah Colborne, the not so innocent anti-Israel campaigner who was presented as Gaza’s fairy godmother by the BBC. A pattern emerges.

The Israeli press are notorious for shooting themselves in the foot. They mercilessly publicise awkward internal matters which damage and undermine Israel’s image with a degree of disloyalty that a country in a permanent state of war with its neighbours and increasingly isolated from the rest of the world can ill afford. Doing that is a luxury only the secure should risk. Extreme self examination and self-criticism is best kept within the family. It needs to be tempered with the kind of unconditional love that outsiders might not have.

The listener who wrote to me had a hard time convincing me to write this. I didn’t wanna do it. At first I decided not to, and I thought that a programme like “Outlook” was permitted to be one-sided, as its name implies. I thought of the reply that the BBC would trot out – ‘balance would be achieved over time’.
“In your dreams,” I replied, to myself, trying to imagine an “Outlook” interview sympathetic to a protagonist for the Hareidim.

Then I suddenly thought of the hypocrisy of the BBC. Ready willing and able to promote an Israeli political activist and present her as an innocent bystander caught up in a human rights issue and heroically standing up against Jewish religious extremism, eager to conceal political activism on the part of vigorous pro Palestinian / anti Israel campaigners, yet afraid to stir up trouble and strife here for fear of upsetting devout members of the Muslim community on their own doorstep. That’s how I see it anyway.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

A Date in Tunis

By | |
11 Comments

Wyre Davies is a nice chap. Like Eric Idle, Wyre always looks on the bright side of life. He was in Tunisia, happily soaking up the atmosphere of optimism surrounding the glorious Arab Spring and basking in the warm glow of the inclusive and moderate Islamism of Rachid Ghannouchi’s newly elected Ennahda party.

What a shame that Wyre had missed the joyous story of Ennahda’s first diplomatic move, their generous invitation to kindly Ismail Haniyeh. Wyre must have been so engrossed in excitement over the new democracy that he completely overlooked it. Unbeknownst to Wyre, the loveable Hamas leader had been greeted with wild enthusiasm by ecstatic crowds of Tunisians who pledged their undying support the Palestinian cause. The distant sounds of chanting “kick the Jews- it’s our religious duty,” “expel the Jews- it’s our religious duty,” and “kill the Jews- it’s our religious duty” proved but a teeny blip in the haze of optimism surrounding Wyre.
Tunisia’s outstretched hand of friendship, symbolic of new directions and new beginnings, was an open-hearted gesture that even took priority over the urgent business of organising themselves into an economically viable democracy. What a scoop! And there was Wyre, oblivious to the whole lot.

Innocently, he set off to find a story of joy and happiness. The resulting video report: “Tunisian Jews reject calls to leave” and accompanying article entitled “Tunisia’s Jews shun ‘migrate to Israel’ idea” has surprised many listeners who really should have known what a treasure the BBC has in well meaning Wyre. His dutiful pursuit of the exceptional story that proves the rule plays an pivotal role in the BBC’s concerted but puzzling drive to play down significant aspects of the Arab Spring.

Rachid Ghannouchi’s transition from ‘conservative’ intolerant Islamism to inclusive, moderate new-fangled democratically-elected political leader has been widely detailed. By distancing himself from his previous pronouncements on apostasy, women, Jews and Israel he has persuaded the West of his sincerity, almost effortlessly, it seems, as though we’re all gripped in a weird collective act of wishful thinking. But concerns have been raised over his curious reluctance to condemn the blatant antisemitism expressed by masses of his supporters.

So not only does Wyre ferret out some happy Jews who agree with him that they would be stupid to flee, and stupider still to consider fleeing to that ghastly Israel, but he also invents a fanciful version of the history of Tunisia’s dwindling Jewish community, making Tunisia seem like a haven of benevolence.

All this seems part of an inexplicable policy of self-destruction adopted by the BBC and the government alike. It involves a total refusal to accept that religious fanaticism is beyond reason and rationality. Despite all the evidence to the contrary, the BBC and evidently our present government determinedly regards religious fanatics as jolly nice chaps and chapesses whose sense of fair play and goodwill can be appealed to ‘at the end of the day’. By which time, of course, it will be too late.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

What The papers Say

By | | , ,
7 Comments

Today: R4. Monday 23rd January 2012.
Yesterday, at about 7:45. Evan Davis read out the newspaper review. An item from the Guardian was singled out, which he articulated with passion and a distinct air of disapproval. What was it? A new scandal about Hackgate? Big Ben toppled over? Breaking news about another atrocity in Syria? No, it was Harriet Sherwood’s article about the ill-treatment of Palestinian children in Israeli prisons. The way Evan spat the words out, you’d have thought he’d been imprisoned there himself.
There’s something in internet parlance, or maybe in general parlance, called ‘whataboutery’. I take it to refer to a rebuttal that solely consists of examples of something worse than the original criticism.
You write about the bloody awful conditions endured by stone-throwing children held in Israeli prisons, and I counter with ‘what about conditions for children who have been tortured to death in Syria?” That’s what-about-ery.

That has nothing to do with Evan Davis, it concerns a CiFWatch article about another of Harriet Sherwood’s stories about Israel’s wrongdoings, real or imagined. These she obsessively researches to assuage the insatiable appetite for such things over at the Guardian.

The CiFWatch piece, cross-posted at Honest Reporting, begins with a graphic and gruesome description of the body of a 13 year old boy who had evidently been tortured to death by the Assad regime. It’s there purely to contrast its stark brutality with the allegations in the Guardian’s special report that Evan spat out with such venom yesterday.

Someone suggested this was ‘whataboutery’. But it wasn’t really, because Honest Reporting didn’t stop there. They went on to include the Israeli response, which, needless to say, was not published in the Guardian.
The Guardian’s video stars two Palestinian youths, one of whom looks like a chubby young Mr. Bean. Shall we call them ‘mature children’.
We are expected to take their testimony at face value. Their interrogations sounded tough, though not horrifyingly brutal, and if there is any truth in their allegations it’s nothing for Israel to be proud of.

“It would be naive to believe that there have never been any Israeli violations of those laws specifically meant to protect the rights of minors in detention. If these cases exist, there are authorities tasked with investigating and dealing with such deviations. This is not, however, the norm.”

Not touched upon at all is the matter of why they were in this situation, leaving the impression that they were completely innocent victims of some random act of vengeance by Israel.

Honest Reporting says that Israel maintains that these allegations are completely baseless.
“The mechanisms of accountability and rule of law actually exist in Israel” So before anyone says ‘they would say that, wouldn’t they’ it does seem pathetic that the lefty Guardianistas and their BBC bretheren are willing to leave aside their critical faculties, and take the words of all accusers, however implausible, as gospel. Film of stone-throwing Palestinian youths is abundant. We know they do it, and we know that slingshot catapults are lethal weapons. We know that exaggeration and faux news is par for the course. Yet people lap up unverified allegations by agenda-driven reporters. They can’t get enough of it.

The Israel Security Agency and its employees work solely within the law and are subject to oversight and internal and external examination, including by the State Controller, the State Prosecutor, the Attorney General’s Office, the Israeli Knesset and Israel’s courts at all levels, including the Supreme Court.”

That response is dismissed out of hand, deemed not worth listening to.
Mark Regev was allowed just enough time on the video to say that representatives of minors who feel they have been ill-treated should ‘come forward’ as Israel knows it is important to treat young people with extra consideration, but this was nullified by what came immediately after. A reiteration of the original allegations, which was allowed the final word.

This unverified report was singled out by some BBC producer as though it was of particular interest to Today listeners, and maybe they’re right.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

Losing Battle

By | |
137 Comments

In defending Israel I’ve come to realise that preconceived ideas and gut feelings override all reasonable argument. That is to say however well argued, very few are willing to engage, or even listen to any case you may make.

Even those who see themselves as profoundly logical abandon all reason when it comes to this particular topic. The so-called open-minded can’t literally be so, unless they’ve suffered catastrophic memory loss.
It’s a big ask. Why would anyone cast aside a lifetime of negative input the media has subjected them to, and suddenly agree to re-evaluate, reconsider or unlearn material that they’ve digested and misunderstood? It is firmly embedded, and it’s staying that way, thanks all the same.
Defenders of Israel face a fiercely stubborn resistance, impenetrably and formidably fortified and reinforced on a daily basis by the BBC.

Abandoning reason is not the BBC’s exclusive prerogative. We can all do it. Fruitlessly citing individual examples of unfairness, and still, despite past performance, hoping for a breakthrough in some kind of imaginary BBC future, has to involve blind faith. Where is the logic in believing that One Day someone important at the BBC might have that crucial, eureka-damascene-moment?
Silly me. It’s all water off a duck’s back to the Beeb, but here’s one anyway.
Yolande Knell has noticed that an Israeli hacker has retaliated. She noticed, in the best BBC tradition, the retaliation only. The provocation, no.

Here’s another one, and I’m using today’s examples but I could just as easily have picked any other random BBC day.

Israel is banning Palestinians who marry Israelis from gaining Israeli citizenship. How awful! Newsworthy because it fits a pattern perhaps. Less newsworthy because it does not, is the way the rest of the Arab World treats Palestinians. And the rest of the Arab World, unlike Israel, hasn’t even been threatened with holy Jihad with the intended goal of annihilation. They can be racist, discriminatory and evil to their hearts’ content, and no-one at the BBC bats an eyelid. But the BBC and their sibling, the Guardian, with hostility in their hearts send forth reporters just to put despised Israel under a microscope. The mission is to seek out whatever might conceivably add to their systematic vilification, egging each other on like a couple of gossips revelling in the character assassination of another.

I wrote the above yesterday, but despondency prevented me from posting then. That, and the fact the article did stick more or less to the facts and didn’t contain the BBC’s usual ‘Palestinians-as-victims’ emoting.
However, last night the BBC world Service spurred me into action by broadcasting a self-piying interview with a married couple who had been inconvenienced by this ruling. No, they were not actually inconvenienced yet, but they might be in the future.

Racist, apartheid, discriminatory, nationalistic and any other evil insinuations can be made by the media about ‘Jewish Israelis’ or ‘Israeli Jews’ for ever and a day, but never can the same be made about the people in the places where such things are a reality. We rarely hear from the BBC the openly-stated Palestinian boast that any future Palestinian state will be “Jew-free”.

The BBC will not engage with this simply because it doesn’t choose to. Sixty years of insidious, slippery, stealthy demonisation can’t be undone overnight, and rational argument will have no impact unless the BBC changes its mind.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

Wake up Calls

By | |
13 Comments

Last night’s BBC World Service broadcast two notable items for insomniacs. From Our Own Correspondent aired an old episode, first heard in 2007, by Martin Bell.
As a BBC correspondent Martin Bell had been “trained to be objective”, but later wondered whether such a thing could really be achieved.
TV news is the most powerful medium that has yet been devised, he said. Politicians and generals take account of it and adapt their policies accordingly. He spoke about impartiality, and warned against ‘false equivalency,’ and after giving what seemed to me a very shaky example concerning Hitler, (he persecuted the Jews, but he rescued the economy) he concluded that reporters should be aware of the moral ground and not stand equally between good and evil. But all the time questions were begged, and answers were not forthcoming. I’d like to have heard his view on another item that disturbed my slumbers. An episode of Hard Talk featuring Michael Morpurgo. I’ve heard most of the content before. He dragged out the incident during his infamous visit to Gaza, where he saw a sight that convinced him that the IDF deliberately target children. He wouldn’t hear any of the multifaceted explanations that might have shed new light on what he saw then, and he obviously hasn’t changed his mind now. Stephen Sackur even had a go, and accused him, gently, of naivety. I see from my earlier article I noted that Paxo also ‘had a go’ at him on Newsnight.
“Children were innocently picking up rubble. They weren’t shooting at anyone, they weren’t throwing stones, yes there was an exclusion zone, but a young man was shot in the leg, and that means the Israelis deliberately target children.”
He felt very very strongly about it, so like a good schoolteacher, he felt it was his privilege, nay, his duty as a famous storyteller, to side with the Palestinians against the Israelis.
I can’t say I warm to indignant smugness, especially when it’s wrong-headed and comes from a sentimental school-teacherish bloke who dresses only in clashing shades of red.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

Leadership Debate

By | |
11 Comments

Two of the Today guest editors bucked a familiar BBC trend. Two in a row. Yesterday Tracey Emin courageously admitted that she Voted Tory, (gasp) and our Thursday, Jewish guest editor chose to explore leadership with special reference to the Middle East, whereupon Sarah Montague, the BBC’s premier advocate of the “talk to Hamas strategy’ was dispatched to interview Tony Blair. Tony Blair may not be everyone’s favourite person, but having settled into his post as Middle East Peace Envoy it started to look, to some people, as if he was gradually discovering what was going on.

One wonders whether he felt, like Tracey Emin, that it was difficult to bare his soul openly to the Today audience without obsequiously justifying himself, because some of his answers seemed designed to pre-emptively appease a cynical reception. For example:

“There will always be incidents that go, …it might be acts of terrorism…. it might be raids that go wrong. There will always be reasons why people retreat to their comfort zone and say “I’m not dealing with these people”

Which sounded as though he too was contemplating the inevitability of the Talk to Hamas strategy. Then again, on Israel’s security problem. Because, thanks in no small measure to the BBC, the separation wall has acquired notoriety as a disingenuous excuse for land grab, rather than what it really is, a lifesaving protective barrier against terrorism.

“Look. The Israelis worry hugely about their security.
And their security worry is a genuine worry.
They haven’t just made it up.
They have their genuine security problem.”

Please believe me, he almost pleaded. I do protest! Then he continued with a bizarre and startling example of moral equivalence.

“As a result of that they go into the Palestinian areas. As a result of that many Palestinians feel the weight of the occupation upon them. That makes them more angry; they therefore want to retaliate.
The Palestinians have a genuine worry. particularly with things like settler violence starts [sic] on the increase, they think ‘will these guys ever get out and let us run our state.”

Who is ‘retaliating’ and who is ‘instigating’ here? Let’s leave that aside though, and ask, is Tony Blair really equating ‘settler violence’ with suicide bombings, murderous assaults and rocket attacks on civilians? By jove, it seems he really is.
Sarah moved the discussion on.

“Let’s move on the western leadership because that’s the other big player. I wonder to what extent western leadership has made things more difficult. We encouraged the Palestinian elections. The EU funded them. But when there was an outcome that we didn’t like, which was Hamas being elected, we withdrew aid, and we ignored the result. And I wonder when you look back at what has happened in the past year across the Middle East, and you wonder whether that was a mistake?”

Having avoided looking at the Israeli or the Palestinian leaderships, what was on Sarah’s mind was the Arab Spring. But Tony Blair wasn’t quite finished. He was referring in some way to the IRA, and apparently warming to the idea of talking to Hamas.

“I think historically the difficulty of the west has always been, and you know, we faced the same difficulties with the IRA, the circumstances where people are not foreswearing the use of terrorism to advance their political objectives, can you interact with them or not? I actually think there is an opportunity now, with what is happening across the region, because after all, frankly we will be dealing with the Muslim Brotherhood, and Hamas are associated with them all over the region. Now, I think if Hamas were prepared to at least say ‘look, so far as we’re concerned we’ll pursue our political objectives, but by non violent means, I think that would give you a far greater opportunity of creating circumstances in which you get all of the Palestinian parties in some sort of dialogue.”

Good luck with that. Good luck with Hamas pursuing its political objectives by non violent means. Perhaps a polite notice of eviction will do the trick. Dear Israel, kindly vacate the premises, Yours sincerely, Ismail Hanyieh. Or perhaps not.

Sarah persists.

“We’ve slightly been forced into this because as you say the Muslim Brotherhood now is actually looking like the more moderate of those
Islamist groups rising in Egypt, But back in parliamentary elections as far back as 2005 they did well, and yet we were still supporting and promoting Hosni Mubarak. I wonder whether we have been guilty of thinking that our self interest lies in supporting stability, and making sure that we’ve got intelligence on terrorism and we’ve prioritised that over promoting democracy, over our own values.”

Here the BBC’s real attitude is laid bare. We are, apparently, guilty of supporting despots and tyrants and ignoring peoples’ human right to democracy, and all for a selfish little bit of peace, stability and a tip off or two about potential acts of terrorism. It ignores the nature of Islam, and has done all along. It projects our concept of democracy onto people who haven’t been pressed to be explicit or specific about their aims and aspirations. Sarah criticises our desire for stability as though it was misguided. But isn’t that what the very people who are voting for the Muslim Brotherhood want for themselves, over and above many other things? Could that be part of the reason why they like the Muslim Brotherhood and why they voted for Hamas? Do they prefer order and certainty over chaos and uncertainty. They opt for the certainty of the Islamic conservatism with which they are familiar, over what they see as the decadent and directionless west. But nobody asks these questions.

Tony Blair is unable to say what he might really wish to. What I hope he really wishes to. He is constrained by political correctness and reluctance to risk alienating the audience, or perhaps because he really doesn’t know what he’s been dealing with all along, throughout his Peace Envoyship. He waffles, insinuates and emotes, but he doesn’t and can’t come out with an outright condemnation of Islamism or an explanation as to why our own concept of democracy might differ from that of the Egyptians, the Tunisians, the Libyans, the Syrians and the Palestinians.
And as for Sarah and the BBC, they still refuse to see what is in front of their noses.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

Fings Aint Wot They Used To Be

By | | , ,
6 Comments

The BBC is fond of the familiar. It favours the tried and tested, nay, the formulaic, all year round. But tradition and ritual are an extra special feature at Christmas. It’s what the audience wants, is it not? , “Give them more of what they liked last time round!” those innovative creative commissioning editors must have squealed as they sat round the table in the BBC’s department of inspiration and left of centre thinking.
“Eureka!” They might have cried, “Here’s what we’ll do for Christmas!” “Morecambe and Wise!” “Shrek!” “And don’t forget to go up to the attic and see if you can find the one about the shepherds. I know we put it somewhere. They love that one. What we need is another good old ‘fings aint wot they used to be’ special.”
Israel-bashers unite, far and wide, and the BBC is not averse to a bit of sentimentality at Christmas time, even if it means following the herd. Literally.
“Ring up Carlos Sarras, our go-to Palestinian shepherd, and if he’s available again get Jon Donnison on the case. Yolande Knell can find another old geezer wistfully reminiscing about his goat, his olive tree and his donkey and she can finish with an interview with George Saadah, deputy mayor of Bethlehem, whose message of peace and goodwill to all men we’ll put under the heading “The Wise Man.” Jon Donnison gave him a lengthy spot on BBC News 24 the other day, so the audience will be liking him already.”
“Bring the story up to date with some fresh 2011 references to the apartheid wall, and round it up thus: “Forty years ago, there were just a few thousand settlers living in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, territory Israel captured and occupied in the 1967 Middle East war.“
(That would be the1967 war of intended annihilation against Israel instigated by her surrounding neighbours, I think you’ll find, Mr D., a simple fact that might have significant bearing on the situation.)

“Put it in context,” they’ll be reminding each other.“Now there are around 500,000 settlers.”
“and finish, as ever, with the perennial: “Settlements are illegal under international law, although Israel disputes this.” and Bob’s yer uncle!”

Same old addendum each time, but hardly innovative. Here’s an idea for the creatives at the BBC Left Field Think Tank. Think outside the box! Why stick to that tired old taint as your sole contribution to what you scurrilously call ‘context?’
For a change, why not put some different context, for example: “Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip receive one of the highest levels of aid in the world.” That’s context, is it not? How about a straightforward: “Palestinians receive more aid per capita than any other people on the planet.” Or why not inform the public thusly: “Hamas, who rule Gaza have Israel’s destruction immutably written within their charter!” Or, from the charter itself: “[Peace] initiatives, the so-called peaceful solutions, and the international conferences to resolve the Palestinian problem, are all contrary to the beliefs of the Islamic Resistance Movement.”
Well, why not? It’s context. It would make a change. Make progress. You love complaining that fings aint wot they used to be, but it’s no use complaining. Fings just aint.

Or, why not go for refreshing honesty? Come out! No more closet. Why not just put “The BBC pledges everlasting allegiance with the Palestinians, and will continue to act as their mouthpiece while promising never to waste an opportunity to denigrate Israel.”

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.