Not forgotten

I was searching for something on the www. last night when I stumbled upon the Biased-BBC archive. I forget what I was looking for now, but I found something interesting from June 26, 2008, instead.

Well, you may not think it was interesting, but I do because it shows that I’ve been saying the same old thing for over eleven years. It’s quite concerning because nothing has changed. In fact, come to think of it, things seem to be getting worse, which I suppose amounts to eleven years’ worth of wasting my time. 

However, I just thought it would be a good idea to post a video of Prof. Irwin Cotler speaking about the forgotten refugees, which I must have just linked to originally - in those days the magenta-themed Biased-BBC site had a comments system that was about as user-friendly as ours, i.e., not very. The big surprise (to me) was that one of the site upgrades must have propelled the video into appearing in its full glory, ‘automagically’, perhaps by some technological miracle; or perhaps manually by a loyal and dedicated techie.

As it’s tucked away behind the archive tab, all forlorn and covered in dust, I am re-posting it eleven years on because it’s still relevant. Firstly because it’s about the Forgotten Refugees (debated in the HoC on 19th use 2019) and secondly because it concludes that the very same Islam-rooted hatred of Jews lies behind the predicament of both Israeli and Palestinian refugees. Which is what I said in my previous. It’s a matter of a shared root cause, not opposite sides of a coin as many people like to believe.

The Arabs who were later to be anointed “Palestinians” by Yassir Arafat, fled or were forced to flee because of their determined opposition to the creation of the Jewish State and their decision to launch an all-out attack against Israel immediately on its declaration of independence.  A disaster based on the hatred of Jews, and the very same hatred that caused hundreds of thousands of Jewish residents of Islam-dominated countries to be turfed out of their homes and robbed of their livelihoods. 

As we all know, the Palestinian refugees were (and still are) being kept stateless and cynically used as pawns and perpetual victims for a brand of political leverage specially designed to appeal to the wider world. The aim is to ‘Free, free, Palestine from the river to the sea”. 

Not so widely known is the story of  850,000 exiled and penniless Jews who were unconditionally welcomed and absorbed by Israel. This is why the parliamentary debate is so late in the day. Victimhood and pathos are powerful emotional tools. If a fraction of the attention had been paid to this issue over the last seven decades as that devoted to the Palestinians, today's politics might have been less polarised and less toxic. 

Now for the passive aggressive remarks from that disingenuous negotiator Dr Saeb Erekat as recounted in the debate by Fabian Hamilton MP (Labour)

“As it happens, just before I came to this debate, I had a meeting with Dr Saeb Erekat from the Palestine Liberation Organisation. I told him about this debate and that we would be discussing Jewish refugees in the middle east, and asked him what he would do about that. He asked me to say quite openly that the Palestine Liberation Organisation and the Palestinian Authority believe that just as Palestinians should have their rights to return with full compensation, so should all Jewish refugees. I thought that was very interesting.”

No, Palestinians cannot have that, as it would mean the end of Israel as a Jewish state, and no, it is most unlikely that Jewish refugees (who are no longer refugees) would prefer to exercise their rights to return to the Jew-hostile countries that expelled them in the first place.

And as for the Minister for the Middle East, Dr Andrew Murrison, who should know better, opining that Saeb Erekat “is a very wise man with a great deal of experience in these matters, and the remarks that he made to the hon. Gentleman do not surprise me in the least.” 

All I can say is that Mr Erekat may indeed have a great deal of experience in these matters, but the ‘wisdom’ Dr Murrison refers to is confined to screwing the Israelis into the ground, and the disingenuous, faux generosity within the remarks he made to the hon. Gentleman should not surprise anyone in the least.

Hollow words

I’m bewildered. I do wish one of the BBC’s terrier-like inquisitors were also bewildered enough to question the appropriate individuals on my behalf. Simplified to the point of banality, as follows:

Of the original magnificent seven Labour Party defectors, only Berger and Gapes cited the Corbers’ / McDonnell leadership’s antisemitism as a ‘red line’; the straw that broke the camel's back. What all seven seemed to have in common was their opposition to Brexit. 

So how does the notable rise in antisemitism in Europe chime with their position?

Of the eight Labour Party defectors  (the original seven, plus Joan Ryan) only Luciana Berger and Joan Ryan turned up for the HoC debate on antisemitism. 

To me, the ‘defection’ itself implicitly shines a light on the majority - let’s call them the ‘stay-and-fighters’. By the same token, the paucity of attendees at this timely HoC debate surely says something about the ‘stay-away-ers’.

Notable Labour attendees were Stella Creasy and Jess Phillips. Notable absentees were…. ….anyone from the shadow front bench bar Barry Gardiner  (more of whom later) 

Where was Tom Watson? 

I don’t know the parliamentary convention regarding one’s presence at a debate in which one doesn’t intend to speak. Do many people attend such debates as onlookers, either to show solidarity or at any rate to show an interest? 

Could it be that all the nominally supportive absentees would have been there but for other, more pressing commitments? I don’t know, but the vast acres of empty green leather painted a picture.

Barry Gardiner became quite tearful and emotional. But his words rang hollow. He avoided criticising his party’s leadership, and I’m afraid any number of stifled sobs are no substitute for the specificity that the occasion demanded. Theresa Villiers was very specific. 

Other notable and unexpected performances were given by Guto Bebb, Ivan Lewis and Maria Caulfield who listed a set of parallels between what is happening now and the rise of Adolf Hitler.

Lastly, a curate’s egg of a speech by Clive Lewis. It was one of those ‘racism in all its forms’ contributions, which I for one could do without in a debate that was supposed to be about antisemitism.

No-one, but no-one mentioned Islam. Most of the loudest voices were quick to identify ‘the far right’. All this shilly-shallying around - could it be an indication that the Labour party is conspicuously avoiding its own responsibility for the Blair Government’s deliberate open-door policy, which was to import Labour voters from third world countries to ensure their position in perpetuity? 

Debate on antisemitism Wed 20th February 2019

The ayes have it

I’m linking to this HoC Westminster Hall debate (3rd July) UK-Israel Trade, for a reason. Several reasons actually. Firstly it makes a nice change to see MPs debating Israel in a positive way without being shouted down by the massed choir of Israelophobes that usually dominate such debates. 

Secondly, I’m using it to highlight the way memes and tropes embed themselves in the language to be trotted out by the culturally and historically illiterate.

Looking at the list of speakers, certain names leap out - (from the left) habitual offenders in this respect. Predictably they duly chimed in, to the tune of ”occupied territories” “settlements”  “illegal under international law”. It’s dispiriting to witness Israel-bashing zealots citing institutionally anti-Israel organisations like the UN to back up their argument; more so when they are allowed to do so without facing robust challenges by wiser, better-informed and more legally literate opponents.

So let’s have a look at the memes and tropes concerning Donald Trump that have embedded themselves in the language, which are thoughtlessly bandied about by all and sundry.

Ed Miliband gave us a prime example. His explanation for his presence at an anti-Trump demo came simply in the form of a list: Fascist, Misogynist, Racist - there may have been another couple, which have momentarily eluded me.

We heard the same list again from a caller to Any Answers. The term Fascist has suffered extreme mission creep. It now seems to mean nationalist, or, if you like, patriot.  Misogyny is the label most commonly associated with Trump, which I assume stems from that infamous recording resurrected from his pre-politics era. The crudely worded confidences he blurted out to his companion seemed to me to be nothing much more than an inarticulate expression of delight and surprise at the unexpected benefits of power and success. It reminded me of Robbie Williams, half stoned apparently, crying out “I’m rich beyond my wildest dreams”. 

The real problem with The Donald is his limited vocabulary. You can tell he’s struggling with language, falling back on rudimentary words and expressions just as a small child would, but sometimes cutting through the bullshit and shaking up the torpid status quo in the process. 

I don’t think Trump is a racist. Or is Islam officially a race these days? 

The caged children thing is disingenuous. I understand that President Obama’s record is no less disrespectful of human rights, and for that matter, Bill Clinton’s and John H Kennedy's are no less misogynist and so on. This is one occasion when ‘whataboutery’ looks like a valid approach.

Another caller to Any Answers accused the BBC of whipping up anti-Trump animus, singling out John Sopel and Paul Wood. Anita Anand wasn’t happy. “They aren’t here to defend themselves”, she said, “and I’m not going to criticise my colleagues.” 

The BBC's antisemitism problem vol ll

It is completely dispiriting to read comments all over the blogosphere stating that all the fuss and furore over Labour’s antisemitism problem will make little or no difference. Not to the party itself, not to the thousands of new members, not to the voters, not to anyone.

The media is already losing interest. The debate in the HoC has come and gone. Corbyn has “chuntered” and mumbled, has walked out of the debate during some of the most impassioned speeches, has been heckled, has refused to participate in the debate himself, has stymied a forthcoming meeting with the mainstream Jewish community by insisting that the Jewish antisemitism-denying faction is present to shield him from reality, and is sitting tight until the fuss dies down. Which it will.

The media bears a huge responsibility for this state of affairs. Although the debate was impressive and emotional, much of it was irrelevant. Certainly the speeches by the Jewish and non Jewish MPs who had been bullied and abused online, them and their families threatened with rape or murder were affecting. But the only speech that got to the nub was one that hardly anyone else has highlighted. So I’ll do it here.

Chris Green MP 18.37.33

"There is the frequent demonisation - the unique demonisation of the State of Israel, which happens only to the Jewish State. No other comparison happens wit any other country in the world. the boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign represents a unique attack on Israel, and lends itself not just to anti Zionism but also to antisemitism. It is the attempted isolation of Israel through commerce, academia, and through culture. 

Isn’t it incredible, that we would seek to isolate Israel to stop businessmen and women, to stop academics and to stop artists and musicians working in and working with the State of Israel. Increasingly Jews in Europe are leaving for Israel; we must deal with antisemitism in Britain before British Jews fee they have to leave our land."

All the fuss about the washed-out has-been Ken Livingstone is a distraction.  Yes, chuck him out. Suspend him definitely. Get him sectioned. I don’t care. But deal with the BBC’s one-sided, anti-Israel reporting or you’ll never ever rid the Labour Party or the political left of antisemitism.

Applause in the HoC

I watched Jeremy Corbyn in the House of Commons this afternoon.

No, not the emergency debate  secured by Corbyn .....

 “calling for a new War Powers Act that would require Parliament to be consulted on military intervention”.

As it happens, I did watch that one (which seemed to be eating into the time allocated for the following one) while waiting for the advertised business, the debate about antisemitism. (Click to view the whole thing)

Many of the most significant speeches are on Youtube already, and Guido has some of them on his site, where I notice the comments are disabled. That’s unusual for Guido. I wonder why. No I don’t.

Apparently Jeremy Corbyn was “Chuntering" during the speeches (before he left the chamber)

....but  warned he won’t take part…

Luciana Berger got a round of applause, and

So did Ruth Smeeth. The antisemitic comments she read out were not quite as amusing as Richard Dawkins's....

John Mann was terrific, and

Ian Austin was impressive.

The BBC has reported it here:

“The Labour leader, who was present in the chamber for much of the debate, is due to hold talks next week with leading Jewish groups amid criticism of his handling of anti-Semitism cases.”

They describe it in a 'glass half full' way, whereas sone of us might have put it another way “The Labour leader, who was absent from the chamber for much of the debate.."

The News Channel was much more interested in the previous business as was Corbyn.

The leader of the opposition looked even more reptilian than normal during Andrew Gwynn’s statement, but he slunk off in the middle of the debate, missing the most impassioned contributions. 

Politics, Hamas and Islamic State

Idly watching the parliament channel yesterday I realised the topic was the Israeli / Palestinian situation.

My ears pricked up.  I paid attention to what I was watching. It was the HoC. International Development Questions.

This exchange occurred:

 John Howell: I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.The Prime Minister has been clear that Palestinian incitement will not be tolerated. As many as 25 Palestinian Authority schools are named after Palestinian terrorists, including Dalal Mughrabi, who killed 37 Israeli citizens. Will the Secretary of State assure me that no British aid goes towards such schools or to support the glorification of terrorism? 

Justine Greening: The Prime Minister and I have been very clear that the UK deplores incitement on both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. We monitor any allegations of incitement closely and raise instances with both the Palestinian and the Israeli authorities. Regarding the UK’s direct financial assistance to the Palestinian Authority, which provides civil service salaries, it goes only to approved individuals through a World Bank trust fund that has an independent audit.

(emphasis added) Justine Greening looked irritable. What, I wondered, is the  incitement on the Israeli side of the conflict? I suppose the government might argue that it’s Israel’s foreign policy. (settlements; the blockade; checkpoints.) But in the long run it all boils down to the fact that the incitement on Israel’s part is its actual existence.  Anything that could be termed incitement from the Israeli side (other than its success, which its enemies find infuriating) pales into insignificance in comparison to the encouragement from the Palestinian leadership - literally and explicitly - to commit violent and murderous acts against Israelis 

Two isolated incidents, the murder of the Dawabshesh family and the murder of Mohammed Abu Khdeir are the only examples of what could remotely count as comparable in terms of violence against innocent civilians, but they were not incited and were roundly condemned by everyone, everywhere. No schools were named after the perpetrators. No streets were dedicated to them. No-one called them heroic. 

It makes you wonder. Is the government actually aware of the situation? To what extent? Is there anyone in government who understands what is happening?

 A full version (pdf) of this report into the recent Israel/Gaza hostilities “Operation Protective Edge” was published recently. It really needs to be read in full. 

It comes after the earlier UN investigation, which came to the conclusion that war crimes were committed by both sides. 

Some Pro Palestinian advocates have already dismissed the report by the High Level Military Group as biased because some of the individuals in the group are known to be, or have been, pro Israel. 

This cuts both ways, as the dismissers themselves apparently fail to acknowledge.

Dismissers! acknowledge thyselves! 

Also, it’s worth mentioning that those who cavalierly shrug off the report's findings rely on the disproportionate death toll to ‘prove’ their point, even though this concept has been forensically debunked (as detailed in the report) in accordance with the Law Of Armed Conflict. This raises doubts as to whether the critics have in fact read the report before trying to discredit it. 

FYI, This is how the HLMG describe Hamas:

“Following Israel’s disengagement in 2005, Hamas, a terrorist organisation proscribed by the United States and the European Union among others, gained full control of Gaza in a violent coup in 2007. Hamas’s charter explicitly obligates the organisation to destroy Israel through Jihad in order to establish Islamic rule. Its military leadership and most of the organisation’s manpower are in Gaza while its political leadership is split between Gaza and Doha, Qatar. External actors play an important role in supporting Hamas, with Iran in particular being responsible for upgrading Hamas capabilities through the supply of weapons and training. 

1. Founded by Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, Hamas - an acronym for Harakat al-Muqawama al-Islamiya (“Islamic Resistance Movement”) - was established as the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood in 1987. Combining Palestinian nationalism with Islamic fundamentalism, antisemitism and conspiracy theories - the Jews control the media and were behind the French Revolution and both world wars, according to the document - the Hamas charter, known as The Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement, places an explicit obligation on the organisation to destroy Israel and states that Hamas “...strives to raise the banner of Allah over every inch of Palestine… [and] believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf… [and that] it, or any part of it, should not be given up… as long as earth and heaven remain… There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors.”1 The atrocities the organisation has committed against Israel in the pursuit of this mission, in particular its campaign of suicide bombings prior to the construction of Israel’s security barrier, have made Hamas one of the most prominent terrorist organisations on the planet, proscribed among others by the US, EU, Canada and Australia. 

All emphasis added. 

I wonder if Justine Greening (or the BBC) is aware of this definition of Hamas? 

This is from the section about ... well. It speaks for itself ... the media’s role.  

Media Manipulation and Intimidation 

1. Hamas coupled this strategy on the ground to a wide-ranging information effort aimed at eroding Israel’s legitimacy. It deployed a sophisticated social media strategy, segmented by audience, and issued directives in pursuit of its goals, such as instructing its supporters to always make reference to civilian casualties, or compare Israel’s operation in Gaza to the Holocaust.44

1. Moreover, Hamas as a matter of policy constrained press freedom in Gaza and even threatened reporters into acquiescing to their demands about coverage. A Hamas official acknowledged that the group strong-armed journalists in Gaza into a reporting style that bolstered its narrative, keeping many under surveillance, forcing them to “change their message” and expelling from the territory those who sought to film the launching of rockets at Israel, whom it accused of “collaborating with the occupation.”45 Most outlets failed to mention these constraints when covering Gaza, in many cases contrary to their own published guidelines. 46 The Foreign Press Association in Israel condemned “the blatant, incessant, forceful and unorthodox methods employed by the Hamas authorities and their representatives against visiting international journalists in Gaza.”47 Reporters told of being interrogated and intimidated by Hamas officials, who also prevented photographs being taken of any wounded or dead terrorists at the alShifa hospital, even though their presence there was common knowledge.48 Rather, only images of wounded or dead civilians were permitted.

1. Hamas’s media manipulation was not just by censorship, however, but included the proactive fabrication of its narrative in pursuit of its key strategic goal of utilising the media for its assault on Israel. The Washington Post newspaper documented several cases of scenes being “prepared” in advance of Hamas led visits for photojournalists, as well as the coaching of a young child for television news.49 This management of the all important imagery of the conflict appears to have been successful with Hamas fighters being virtually invisible. Several New York Times slide shows on the Gaza conflict, for example, while showing Gaza civilians in distress and IDF tanks and personnel, failed to show a single armed Hamas operative or rocket launching squad.50 Moreover, Hamas effectively used members of the media as human shields in similar fashion to its own civilian population, deliberately endangering their lives. Reporters witnessed a Hamas unit firing an RPG adjacent to a crowded hotel occupied by foreign journalists and some NGOs. In Hamas’s strategic win-win calculation, either the presence of high-profile civilians would protect its operatives or a retaliatory strike would be a major propaganda victory.51 A similar report by India-based NDTV on Hamas assembling and firing a rocket next to a hotel used by journalists was filed hours after the reporter left Gaza, because according to the reporter, “Hamas has not taken very kindly to any reporting of its rockets being fired”.52 

1. Hamas’s effective manipulation of the messages emanating from Gaza during the conflict is not just a matter of upholding the standards of accurate and balanced reporting, but rather, coupled to its strategic concept, forms a core part of a deliberate strategy to shape the narrative around the conflict in its favour. The impact of this strategy in the form of the resultant media imagery amplified by misinformed commentary about LOAC is a key reason why Hamas is able to act with the unlawful modus operandi of a terrorist organisation, but enjoy a strategic communications advantage over Israel, which seeks to act within LOAC. 

1. This dynamic is substantially aided by a broader asymmetric advantage Hamas enjoys in the media space, which often fails to reflect Hamas’s modus operandi not just in reporting, but also in ascribing equal weight to Hamas pronouncements to those of Israel on events during conflict, despite one being a terrorist movement and the other a democratic state. This has a serious effect on the strategic environment for Israel and has allowed some of the greatest gains for Hamas’s misinformation strategy against Israel. 

...though Jeremy Bowen and Lyse Doucet dispute it. They deny any knowledge of intimidation or restrictions on their reporting imposed upon them by Hamas. If this is genuine it must be because there was no need for any strong-arm tactics as the BBC’s army of reporters were already on message.

The next segment of the HoC spectacle concerned BDS.  I thought David Cameron opposed BDS, in agreement with Boris. Not so. Here’s the bit I found particularly startling.

Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab): Surely the Secretary of State will be aware of the guidance on the Foreign Office website, which warns UK companies thinking of investing in the Occupied Palestinian Territories of the “legal and economic risks” if they engage in“financial transactions, investments, purchases, procurements and other economic activities in Israeli settlements or benefitting Israeli settlements”because of the illegal nature of those settlements and their being an obstacle to peace. Does the right hon. Lady therefore agree that it is perfectly reasonable for both public and private institutions to pay due regard to that advice when they make their own investment and procurement decisions?

Justine Greening: They should do that; that is good Foreign Office advice. We have been very clear that we deplore illegal settlements, because they take us further away from a two-state solution and peace in that part of the world, when we need to be taking what could be final steps and final chances to reach a two-state solution.

Richard Burden is a well known Israel-hater and BDS activist. Justine Greening’s eyes glimmered with loathing as she gave her answer in favour of BDS and I had the impression that David Cameron was sitting right beside her.   Good Foreign office advice? BDS? Who knew?

Later, in a section headed Gaza: Youth unemployment, came this: 

Simon Danczuk: Gaza still faces restrictions on access to 35% of its agricultural land and 85% of its fishable waters, and Gazans are rarely allowed to travel outside their territory. Until such restrictions are removed, DFID will continue to work with one hand tied behind its back. Does the Minister not agree that the real problem is the blockade of Gaza?

and this:

Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab): Can we make it absolutely clear that supporting the Palestinian people has nothing whatever to do with anti-Semitism? I wanted to clarify that at the outset.Does the Minister not agree that the appalling situation in Gaza—and he has given us the figures—shows the need for the developed democracies to do far more? What hope can there be for the Palestinian people when they are faced with so little hope of obtaining jobs and having a decent life? Should we not be far more concerned with the Palestinian tragedy than we are?

 this:

Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con): Does my hon. Friend not agree that the ill-considered, short-sighted campaign for boycotts and disinvestment is actually leading to more unemployment among the Palestinian people?

and later, another relevant section in the HoC International development session concerned: “Gaza: Water and Sanitation.” 

After documenting a litany of Gaza’s woes, implicitly all because of Israel’s blockade:

 Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab):“What can be done about that, or is it just a case of lifting the Israeli blockade and getting on with life?”

After which: 

Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con): The hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) speaks about the blockade, but surely if they did not embrace Hamas and continually fire rockets into Israel, there would not need to be a blockade in the first place.

Hoorah for the blonde in the back row. (Not that the water shortage in Gaza is due to the blockade. It’s due to disputes between the PA and Hamas and the shambolic and corrupt administration in Gaza) but then, what does one expect when the present state of ignorance about the situation prevails?

What do we expect while our major news organ fails in its duty to inform, educate or entertain.

I often wonder if any BBC journalists ever look at the website Palestinian Media Watch.  

 It seems unlikely. They might not even have heard of it, but even if they have I doubt if they’d want to know. They’d consider it a hate site, which I suppose it is, in that it’s a site that’s all about hate. It probably contains too many implicit value-judgments for the delicate sensibilities of BBC policy makers.

If they did deign to look at it, they'd be able to educate themselves about the glorification of terrorists, one theme that constantly pours from the Palestinian media. PMW provides English translations of the incitement to violence and the pure racist Jew-hatred that emanates from Mahmoud Abbas and his cronies. Antisemitic obscenities are scatter-bombed over Palestinian audiences, day in and day out. 

If any BBC employees ever do see this side of Palestinian society, the viewer never gets any indication of it. 

The website MEMRI features subtitled videos (in English) showing Islamic Scholars, clerics, sheikhs and imams spouting outrageous, venomous nonsense about Jews deliberately designed to inflame the audience, but if any BBC employee accidentally stumbled upon one of these, no doubt they’d reflexively dismiss it as propaganda and ‘smears’. 

Why does the BBC refuse to acknowledge the existence of such racist hatred? This deficiency feeds the ignorance of our MPs.  

Closer to home, does the BBC have any interest in the allegiances of personnel they invite to opine on, say, radicalisation, terrorism and matters appertaining to the Middle East? 

Do commissioning editors read articles documenting such allegiances? Do any BBC investigative journalists ever investigate it?

Do the BBC’s political editors know of websites like Elder of Ziyon, BBC Watch, UK Media Watch?  They must be aware of the Gatestone Institute. Calling it all ‘far-right propaganda‘ is no substitute for at least taking it in. 

The website Harry’s Place isn’t far right. It’s kind of centre leftish. It frequently exposes darlings of the left or hard left for what they really are. Hard-line Islamists with pro-Jihadi tendencies and terrorist sympathisers.

  

Someone recently commented:  

“What I want to know is why is this left to Harry's Place to collate and expose? Where are our newspapers? Where are they? Why are they not exposing this? Why are they asleep at the wheel?”

Wouldn’t you like to know that too?  Instead of doing its job - ‘educate inform and entertain’ - the BBC seems to be part of a tacit collusion between ill-informed politicians, ageing adolescents and left wing journalists who are desperately trying to convince themselves that Muslim communities, Islamic leaders and Muslim individuals of all degrees of intensity and religiosity are thoroughly virtuous and completely unrelated and unconnected to Islamic State, which is nothing to do with Islam.  

Unlike a certain person whose head was repeatedly banged against a wall by torturers, some of us bang our own heads against brick walls without the outside help. I’ve been banging mine against one for aeons, millennia, asking the same questions, in vain. 

Why does the BBC report the Israel / Palestine conflict with a moral equivalence so scrupulous that equal credence is given to Hamas (terrorists) and Israel. (democratic state)  The BBC’s mindless pursuit of value-judgment-free reporting amounts to the failure to distinguish between guilt and innocence, good and bad and Islamic extremism and normality. 

For those who think Islamic State has nothing to do with Islam, and that terrorism is nothing to do with the real Islam, which is “the religion of peace”, and for those who call Hamas and Hezbollah their friends, and refer to them as militants because the word “terrorist” would constitute a value judgment of the wrong kind, then look up the Times and the Times of Israel, who recently reported

"Hamas fighters are defecting to Isis."

“Though Hamas is an Islamist group, Isis propaganda accuses it of corruption and a lack of religious fervour, while castigating it for agreeing cease-fires with Israel.”
“Though Hamas with 35,000 fighters under arms appear unassailable in Gaza it finds it difficult to counter the message of Isis. In January Isis flags were seen flying in Gaza at a demonstration against Charlie Hebdo’s cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed.”

Even though the penny is beginning to drop about Islamic State, the connection between that vile organisation and Hamas has yet to be acknowledged by the MSM or the government.

Last word

My final word (I hope) on the HoC debate on the Palestinians’ bid for statehood. 

Over on Harry’s Place Sarah AB’s take on it has prompted several people to express sympathy with MP Richard Ottoway’s purportedly sorrowful confession that he’d lost faith in Israel when it chose to annex all that extra land in area C. People are saying that Israel makes it very difficult for her supporters when she constantly grants permission for more settlements.

 Well, supporting Israel is not easy. Why should it be?  It’s not likely to be easy. 

 “ The real friends of Israel are those that oppose the settler movement.” they say. “Israel is her own worst enemy!” 

Why? So that these real friends can say “Look everybody, Israel occupies the moral high ground?“

In these complex circumstances, support is not something you can just reserve for Israel on condition that, in the eyes of the world, it unfailingly occupies the moral high ground. If that were a condition, as soon as Israel defended itself in any way at all it would be jeopardising that position and sacrificing the appended support. A “moral high ground only” precondition for supporting a country at war is no support at all. 

How many times have you heard a ‘Palestine’ supporter saying “I was a staunch  supporter of the Palestinians until Abbas lost the moral high ground by colluding with Hamas. Or until Abbas stated that any future Palestinian state would be Jew free. Or until Abbas stopped honouring murderers by naming streets after them. Or in fact saying “I stopped supporting Abbas when he violated the Oslo agreement by making a unilateral bid for statehood. He blew it for me when he did that, and now I’m in favour of Israeli settlements.” 

No, you don’t hear that very often. Not ever. If you travelled all the way down Ottoway’s road you’d arrive at confining your support only to a passive Israel. An Israel that tolerates Hamas’s rockets, dismantles the barrier, eases the blockade, sacrifices a few citizens to a suicide bomber or two, and allows Palestinians to return their grannies’ former homes with their giant keys; one that lies down, rolls over and surrenders, and that’s the kind of Israel that would garner universal approval, without a doubt.

Rt Hon Sir Richard Ottaway MP Croydon South

I daresay there are perfectly legitimate arguments for settlement building, but in this climate who is listening? In fact I have heard several credible justifications for it, but even if one were to give the Israel-bashers full benefit of the doubt and concede that the Israeli government acts out of pure malice, defiance, to thumb their noses at the Palestinians and wrong-foot their own supporters, it pales into total insignificance beside the obstacles to peace that the Palestinians themselves put up, and which most of the world doggedly fails to acknowledge. 

What if Netanyahu were to impose his own set of preconditions? Supposing Netanyahu insisted that Israel cannot contemplate a two state solution until the P.A. and Hamas recognise Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state? Or, until the PA and Hamas put an end to incitement in all shapes and forms? Or if they agree to accept ‘normalisation‘  of Israeli / Palestinian relations? What if Israel refuses to negotiate till Hamas disbands, or puts down its arms, like the IRA had to, before going any further? 

If Israel put its supporters pride before the feelings of the Israeli public, Israel’s supporters would be delighted. If the Israeli government carefully considered how not to make its supporters look foolish when formulating policies instead of considering  the wishes and well-being of its own people, supporting Israel would be a doddle. Demanding that the Israeli government prioritise consideration of “us” in their policy-making is a truly weird definition of ‘true friendship’  

This is starting to look like an “Israel right or wrong” argument. It’s not really. I think I’m saying that Israel doesn’t have to be ‘seen to be right’ every single time it makes a move in order to 'deserve' continued support.  If, however Israel does something its supporters vehemently disagree with, they have a perfect right to say so, bearing in mind that doing so inevitably aids her enemies.

That’s how I see it at the moment, (written late last night) but I’m open to alternatives.

******** 

This morning.

Aah. I see the argument has opened up. A much broader spread of views below the line has popped in to the comments field overnight. I was going to steal from a comment (from  nitsanc  to Gene) which illustrates one of my points: (I paraphrase)

Elliott Abrams did a study that found that almost all of the building taking place is in areas that every peace proposal has envisioned staying within Israel. Why is building within those towns such a cause for outrage from people who claim to be pro Israel?
If they are pro Israel then they must be at least equally outraged when Palestinians build within areas that are envisioned to stay within Palestine, right? Calling the designating of state land ‘annexation’ and getting up in arms over building in certain areas shows no understanding of Israel. It buys into this notion of settlements, regardless of where they are, as some horrible war crime, when in fact almost every segment of Israeli society could never countenance giving those particular areas up.

Gene replies:

It doesn't matter. Settlement expansion is not essential to Israel's security and probably undermines it. Settlement expansion undercuts support for Israel even among its friends (and don't say Israel doesn't need friends like that). You can agree with most of what Netanyahu says and does while still understanding that.

To which:

I'll also point out, BTW, that Israel is the only one in this situation adhering to Oslo. While Oslo did not limit settlement construction, it did prohibit the moves made by both the Palestinians and now the International Community. Add to that the fact that Obama went back on Bush's commitments, what incentive does Israel have to trust any of these parties to abide by a future agreement? And what incentive do the Palestinians have to make any concessions?

I see that several of the other points I was trying out have been articulated by others while I was asleep. Instead of ranting further, I commend this estimable Harry’s Place thread  to the House.