Category Archives: pro Islam

Things might be looking up. On last night’s R4 World Tonight there was a discussion about the Camel Corps bloggers . The inappropriate sentiment blogged by two important Middle East diplomats and representatives of Her Majesty’s Government; namely UK ambassador to Lebanon Frances Guy’s fond farewell to the late suicide bomb enthusiast and ‘moderate Hezbollah spiritual leader’ Sheikh Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah, and the Arabist /anti Israel views of James Watt, Britain’s ambassador to Jordan, expressed in no uncertain terms on his FCO blog.

The discussion was preceded by the BBC’s Jim Muir who painted a defensive word portrait of Sheikh Fadlallah, which Stephen Pollard rightly described as nonsense. He and Rosemary Hollis of City University chatted to Robin Lustig about whether it was okay for ambassadors and diplomats to publish “paeans of praise for Ayatollahs” or “screeds of anti Israel ranting” on their blogs.
Stephen Pollard said not, while Rosemary said Frances Guy’s admiration for the Ayatollah was tactical and should be taken in the context of diplomacy and foreign office policy, and reminded us that Islam is off limits in terms of “what can be said.”

In March 2009 a programme was broadcast in the Documents series on Radio 4 concerning the BBC’s partisan conduct during the Iranian revolution. In the 1970s accusations of BBC bias abounded. It was thought that the BBC was creating, rather than reporting the news, and had actively encouraged regime change. It had put out a misleading interview with Ayatollah Khomeini, which hid his malevolence and appeared to back him against the Shah.
The conclusion, that there was ‘no evidence of bias’, belied the contents of the programme. But it was being broadcast on the BBC, and it screamed Mandy Rice Davis.

An article that was more interesting still was by Stephen Ward in the Indy of all places, published in 1993. this was about another programme in the Document series, unfortunately no longer available to listen to. The link comes from a comment in Mel’s blog.
“Why the BBC ignored the Holocaust: Anti-Semitism in the top ranks of broadcasting and Foreign Office staff led to the news being suppressed. “
Not only was antisemitism rife in the Foreign Office and the BBC during WW2, there was a widespread belief that this view was shared by the general population of the UK. News of atrocities was disregarded because it came from Jewish sources, and for that reason, echoes of Richard Ingrams, “tended not to be believed.” It’s rather fascinating and shows that this problem is long standing and deep seated.

All these programmes were actually on the BBC as well as being about the BBC. Perhaps the BBC cannot be biased after all, since such openness could be regarded as evidence of self examination and self awareness. But as the first was weighted in favour of Fadlallah, the second came to an unconvincing conclusion, and the third, well, we can’t hear it any longer. So. As you were.

In days gone by there was no internet and the BBC ruled O.K., so although the familiar gathering storms resonate, while there’s blogs, there’s hope.

Insomnia prompted me to watch HardTalk at about 4:30am. Stephen Sackur was TalkingHARD to Nasser Judeh, Jordan’s foreign Minister. The whole point of Hard Talk, Mr. Judeh pointed out helpfully, is that the talk is hard. Fair enough.
If Sackur was interviewing a lettuce he’d have to press home forcefully the argument from the slug’s perspective. If God Almighty was in the opposite chair, Sackur would be obliged to be devil’s advocate. Or, if he was interviewing himself, he’d have to demand, from himself, some answers to the excellent points made by B-BBC.

One can only hope that this was the idea behind his questioning of Jordan’s foreign minister.

He accused Jordan of not being tough enough on Israel, not being sufficiently condemnatory of Israel’s behaviour during the flotilla incident, and asked why Jordan wouldn’t do the right thing and talk to Hamas, and why it wasn’t sending more aid to Gaza. He criticised Jordan for not being friendlier towards its own Islamist political parties. Sackur was trying to get the guy to admit, as though it was something to be ashamed of, that Jordan might want to stop radical Islamists securing a bigger grip on the country than they already have.

I mean. Give hm a grilling by all means. But give him OUR grilling, not Osama Bin Laden’s.
Episode not available on the website.

I may have been a bit slow to realise this, but as soon as one becomes associated with a particular cause, one alienates people.

It is a mistake to assume that reasoned argument will win anyone over. People make their minds up for all sorts of reasons – then say “that’s my story and I’m sticking to it.”

The more rational you are, the more people use distancing strategies to avoid being seduced by your reasonableness. They marginalise you, label you, and grossly exaggerate your position to avoid accidentally considering any of your points.
This principle works both ways. I confess I’ve caught myself doing it, remonstrated with myself, and carried on regardless.

Questioning the wisdom of pandering to Muslims puts one into the dreaded position of Islamophobe.

On the Sunday programme R4 (31:06) I had to listen to Ed Stourton asking a group of Muslims about their voting habits. One was from the Muslim Council of Britain, an organisation I thought had been deemed unrepresentative of the ‘Muslim voice,’ but no matter. The MCB fella said their aim was fighting Islamophobia and mobilising the Muslim vote, though he was also anxious to point out that there is no such thing as a Muslim vote, apart from successfully ousting Oona King that time.

The conversation turned to ‘cavassing’ Muslims and encouraging them to get out and vote. There is a tickbox system to aid selection of your candidate. A helpful suggestion came from Ed Stourton.. ‘What,’ Muslims must ask, ‘are your views on foreign policy, and do you support Israel?’
‘Posh Ed’ presided benignly over a mutually assured consensus that no Muslim should entertain the idea of squandering their vote on anyone who supports the Zionist entity.

Fighting Islamophobia evidently entails embracing a little antisemitism. This reminds me of another incident that erupted on the internet that also revealed Muslim cognitive dissonance.

It involved the last minute withdrawal of an invitation to Douglas Murray to speak on a panel at the NUS conference at Gateshead.
Douglas Murray is an outspoken opponent of radical Islam, and an advocate of Jewish issues. Therefore, he has alienated quite a few.

The Federation of Islamic Student Societies (FOSIS) refused to participate in the conference unless Douglas Murray was disinvited.

Although Douglas Murray’s friendship is invaluable to supporters of Israel, especially when such eloquent champions are few and far between, the Union of Jewish Students (UJS) felt, on balance, that the chance to expose the hypocrisy of FOSIS before an NUS audience was worth the regrettable loss of his participation.
So they withdrew the invitation, whereupon he publicly criticised the UJS for being cowed by the Islamic Students’ demands.

According to the UJS, in the event, the FOSIS rep was well and truly defeated and exposed as a fool and a hypocrite; not a terribly difficult a task given that they host extremist Islamist speakers such as Anwar al-Awlaki at universities, and justify it on the grounds of ‘free speech,’ an argument that self destructs as soon as FOSIS is seen refusing to appear near Douglas Murray.

The argument is about whether it was worth jeopardising the ongoing backing of Douglas Murray, and sacrificing the opportunity to have him speak at the conference, for the sole benefit of exposing FOSIS to a comparatively limited audience. Past performance indicates that FOSIS itself is unlikely to change, and the ephemeral UJS triumph at the NUS conference seems to have evaporated.

It’s unlikely that Douglas Murray would retaliate by withdrawing his backing, but those who appreciate Douglas Murray’s friendship and support, and see its value in the context of the bigger picture, are concerned that the UJS were rude, misguided and unappreciative.

Antisemitic radical Islam infiltrating Britain’s academia is of no interest to the BBC it seems. There was a programme on R4 about rehabilitating radicals, but they are invariably regarded as the exception, not representative of the real Islam, and as misfits and outsiders.
Events suggest otherwise. That they’re not an exception, that they are representative, and they’re gaining ground.
So if you haven’t already made up your mind, ask your prospective candidates whether they support Israel, and if not, don’t give them your vote.