The snow stole our hard copy of The Times today. I hear the lorry got stuck on the A30. Not to worry, I subscribe to the online version. James Kirkup has written the Thunderer column and it’s called “The BBC needs to go back to basics if it wants to survive“
Some of his observations coincide with what critics of the BBC have said a million times already. Actually, they sound a lot like something I’ve said (have I written about it, or just thought it?) about the BBC before. Namely the flaw it shares with its co-iconic symbol of Britishness, poor old Marks and Sparks - you know, that it’s forgotten its core market and instead wastes its time trying desperately to attract the youth, but it’s so uncool that no-respectable person under, say, 65, would be seen dead wearing those copies of trendy fashion that completely miss the mark. It’s like Dad dancing, says Kirkup. (He’s talking about the Beeb, but I’m talking about both of them)
Just as M & S has been out-trended by the likes of, I don’t know, hundreds of youth-oriented high-street stores, the BBC is being trounced by YouTube and Netflix.
“The BBC reacts by trying to fight YouTube and the rest on their own ground, seeking the loyalty of future adults with youth-focused content and products. The results are predictably uninspiring. BBC Online now reports on vloggers and celebrity pap as news. To lure the indifferent young to its radio and podcasts, the BBC built Sounds, an app (kids love apps, yeah?) that has succeeded only in annoying existing listeners.”
M & S needs to concentrate on good quality clothes like jumpers in the right colours that wash well and last a long time, (about 30 years will do) and the BBC should concentrate on “what it does best — public service journalism and programming”.
Obviously, the best bit for me is the below-the-line comments. The ability to access the comments is where subscribing comes into its own.
Needless to say, many of them are fed up with the BBC’s bias.
********
I’m not going to be mean about Jeremy Hardy now that he has died. It’s very sad that anyone should die at only 57. But it’s hard to be forgiving of the BBC’s wall-to-wall eulogising about his wit and humour and commitment to his “causes” one of which was very vitriolic anti-Israel advocacy.
He was undoubtedly witty and clever, but humour should be based on truth otherwise it’s not funny. Jeremy Hardy fell for Palestinian propaganda hook line and sinker and the general public’s gullibility allowed him to be sarky and inflammatory without any regard or respect for the truth.
Did you watch Camilla Tominey on Question Time, (that is if you could bear to listen to John Prescott’s semi-decipherable streams of verbiage, or watch the Asian lady brandishing those scissor-hands menacingly as she performed exaggerated expressions of disapproval) No, Question Time was barely watchable, and the clip from Tominey’s Corbyn speech was a brief highlight amongst a large field of lowlights. It makes no difference whatsoever. Friend of Hamas? Hezbollah? IRA? Press TV? Commie spy? Everything thrown at Corbyn is simply dismissed as a smear; not that his loyal followers would care either way.
Did you listen to The News Quiz? I accidentally caught part of it. The panellists were amusing themselves with affectionate jokes about Corbyn’s ineffectual spying, but the fact that they ridiculed their hero was probably enough to counter accusations that the BBC’s comedians never satirise Jeremy Corbyn. We learned that Jeremy Hardy has been a friend for years; name-dropping of a most peculiar kind.
According to the Guardian Ken is coming back! Did you know that Ken Livingstone is all set to be reinstated as a member of the Labour Party? He never did anything wrong.
The tide of antisemitism engulfs the Labour Party and it looks as if a great many people are resigned to a Labour Government in the not too distant future.
“But the toxicity of the Hampstead and Kilburn Labour Party has meant that I have had no choice but to speak out on racism, time and time again. At seven of the last nine meetings, the Kilburn Brent Branch of the party has tabled toe-curling motions singling-out Jews and Israel. Seven out of nine. If that is not institutional racism, I don’t know what is.”
I watched Nigel Slater the other day. He went to the Middle East (Turkey, Lebanon and Iran) because he loves Lebanese cuisine and wants to experience the renowned hospitality of the people. That’s something that people like Nigel Slater always marvel at. Because of their generosity and their aromatic cuisine, he and people like him overlook the antisemitism and more barbaric elements of Islamic culture.
This is mad, I know, but I always feel instinctively sorry for Nigel Slater. He seems lonely. But at least he has a lovely kitchen, and like Nigella, always has special artisan groceries wrapped up in crinkly greaseproof paper, not like the vacuum-packed and impenetrable stuff from Lidl’s and Morrison’s. Nigel and Nigella - the his and hers of posh shopping.
One aspect of Nigel’s jaunt through (some of) the Middle East troubles me in the same way ex-hostage (in Lebanon) John McCarthy used to when he hosted a travel programme on radio 4. He was always extolling the virtues of Damascus as a holiday destination. Of course, that was way back in the days when Damascus was merely a police state, rather than an out and out war-zone. He never mentioned that Bashir al-Assad’s spies were everywhere, eavesdropping on every conversation.
But still, nice middle-class people have a thing about Muslim countries and people so hospitable that, no matter how poor, they’ll give a stranger their last sheep’s eye. Well, last week Nigel left Lebanon, where he had been most warmly received by all, Hezbollah was nowhere to be seen and politics was never mentioned but for a couple of oblique references to “the War”. How would he be expected to care that Hezbollah has about 500,000 rockets pointing at Israel?
Off he trotted, to Iran. Nigel was overcome with joy at the hospitality of the Iranians. And only one teeny little mention of the current regime; something about ‘fun’. ‘Long lost,’ it was. I heard there's no such thing as homosexuality in Iran. Luckily for Nigel.
Newsnight viewers have been treated to many such features in recent weeks. Out of the last seven editions of Newsnight six of them (yes, 6/7) have focused on the subject of Labour leadership contest (this Wednesday's edition was the exception to the rule).
Last night's programme focused on the issue of entryism (again).
It included a report from new Newsnight reporter James Clayton (featuring anti-Corbyn Labour MP Neil Coyle), and then a double- interview with non-Corbyn-supporting Labour MP Ben Bradshaw and a disgruntled chap called Pete Sinclair.
The aforementioned Pete said he'd voted Labour up until the Iraq War and only voted Green in 2015 as a protest vote. He'd return to Labour like a shot if Jeremy Corbyn became Labour leader and might even become a member again. Unfortunately (for him), Labour have rejected his vote, suspecting him of entryism.
A quick bit of Googling shows that he's not just some random voter though. He's actually the Pete Sinclair who co-wrote one of my favourite BBC comedies (with Jack Dee), Lead Balloon.
And he's also a writer for Have I Got News For You and Mark Steel's in Town. (Does he write all their anti-UKIP jokes?)
It's odd that Newsnight didn't give its viewers any background information on Peter Sinclair, isn't it? Kirsty merely introduced him as something whose vote was rejected by the Labour Party and he was also merely captioned by Newsnight as 'Pete Sinclair, Excluded from Labour Leadership contest'.
Also, it's a small world, isn't it? Kirsty Wark of the BBC interviewing former BBC Berlin correspondent Ben Bradshaw and Pete Sinclair, writer for the BBC (among others), about the Labour Party?
The Victoria Derbyshire show also captioned him, 'PETE SINCLAIR, Labour leadership vote blocked',
But at least Naga Munchetty gave BBC viewers a bit more information about him, calling him a "comedy writer" (though nothing to connect him to the BBC in any way, shape or form).
More revealing than with Pete Sinclair, the BBC website actually introduced him with the words:
A left-wing comedian has said he was told by the Labour party that he could not vote in its leadership election.
Jeremy Hardy said....
Poor Jeremy. Not getting his vote for Jeremy counted. Oh dear. Snigger.
Update 23.38: Actually make that 7 out of 8 of the last editions of Newsnight that have dwelt on the Labour leadership contest. Tonight's Newsnightalso led on it!
I see Lucy Winkett has been quiet this year. No stunt to highlight Israel’s ‘apartheid wall’ . The plight of (non-Palestinian) Christians in the Middle East seems to be concerning the media, but apportioning the bulk of the blame to “ *Islamic State” (*not the real Islam) still leaves room for a goodly share of the blame to be directed at Israel for the convenience of the BBC-educated Israel-basher.
Mehdi Hasan has resurrected that tired old “analogy”: ‘What if Mary and Joseph tried to get to Bethlehem today?’ (answer: They’d get stuck at an Israeli checkpoint)
Sounds like a joke in a cracker.
The Washington Post has a counter speculation. (answer: They might get murdered by Palestinian terrorists)
(Of course Mehdi is primarily famous for downright moonbattery, but occasionally he’ll come up with a smidgeon of sense, which puts one in mind of his friend Peter Oborne.
Mehdi is a poor man’s Peter Oborne. In a slightly different league, certainly, but parallel. In comparison with his overall output, Oborne’s antisemitic outbursts are few in number, whereas with Mehdi the reverse is the case - the posturing and childishness is the norm and episodes of wisdom are rare. Of course Oborne’s ‘lapses’ (his obsession with the Jewish Lobby etc.) are all the more damaging, whereas whatever credibility Mehdi might have possessed fled with the grovelling letter to the Mail and the infamous cattle video.)
Much of the media stubbornly chooses not to attribute the persecution of Christians and other non Muslim faiths, including “lesser Muslims”, to the rise of political Islam throughout the Middle East. That would mean incriminating Islam, and would necessarily include Hamas and Fatah. Instead they begrudgingly admit that the problem is associated with Islam, but solely confined to the not-the-real-Islam branch of Islam.
Oh well. The zeitgeist is so anti-Israel these days that the BBC’s anti-Israel attitude has become publicly acceptable. Yesterday’s dinner table fashion has obviously trickled down. Which brings us back to Knell.
Leila Sansour is a (half) Palestinian Catholic. I wonder what she made of the Pope’s platitudinous Christmas message. He condemned religious violence, (who wouldn’t?) and called for peace in the Middle East (ditto)
Hadar at BBC Watch was the first to point out that by promoting the film ‘Open Bethlehem” Knell has surely breached the BBC’s impartiality rules for employees -
“It is essential that BBC staff, BBC correspondents on non staff contracts and freelances known to the public primarily as presenters or reporters on BBC news or current affairs programmes do not undertake any off-air activities which could undermine the BBC’s reputation for impartiality. Nothing they do or say should bring the BBC into disrepute. No off-air activity, including writing for newspapers, magazines or websites, writing books, giving interviews, making speeches or chairing conferences should lead to any doubt about the objectivity or integrity of their work for the BBC. If BBC journalists, presenters or reporters publicly express personal views off-air on controversial issues, then their editorial or on-air role may be severely compromised.”
Judging by the trailer for the film, it looks distinctly ‘cheesy’. My guess is that it’s a clunkingly sentimental collection of half-truths and cinematic cliches. I haven’t seen the film of course so I may be wrong. Please don’t take my word for it. (As if!)
I might as well get all chummy and mention Daphne Anson’s post as well as Craig's. We’re all promoting each other, obviously, rather like Knell, Sansour, her hubby Nicholas Blincoe (former adviser to Nick Clegg) and the BBC’s own cutting edge wit and Middle East expert Jeremy Hardy.
(+ John Donnison and a few other BBC staff e.g. Rana Haddad.)
Bonding over cups of Yorkshire tea, Knell and Sansour chat about promoting Open Bethlehem, the film about Israel’s “asphyxiation of a little town with a world mission behind a wall that stands for all that is wrong.”
When not advising the deputy prime minister, hubby Nicholas devotes much of his time to various forms of anti-Israel activism. Meanwhile Jeremy Hardy is busy cracking hilarious jokes about the Jews on the BBC, starring in Sansour’s cutting edge political drama “Jeremy Hardy versus the Israeli Army” and hosting an informative Q.A. about Open Bethlehem.
Leila Sansour is furiously Tweeting about it all, and petitioning for an inquiry into the BBC’s pro-Israel bias.
Good luck with that. If they ever hold such an inquiry, will they release it?
“Dull-witted and lazily obvious political artist” is a perfect description of the wag who provided the inspiration for My Address To The Nation. (H/T Ed West) see below.
Please don’t feel obliged read it all in one go. I know I wouldn’t.
Foreword:
I wanted to Speak to The Nation with a scintillating address about the BBC in which my actual message would come across subliminally, (below the threshold of conscious perception) but cloaked in enough satyrical wit and humour to seduce the audience into thinking I was brilliant. But I didn’t know how to start.
All I had to do now was tweak one or two specifics. Easy peasy. This way, my personalised Address to the Nation retains all the wit and charm of the original, which can never be under-estimated.
(note. Only the underlined passages are my own. Everything else is faithfully reproduced in the original words of the artist Jeremy Hardy.)
Da-rah!
For example, Jeremy Hardy’s ‘template’ - part one:
“People who don’t have the right to national self-determination are likely to want it. Tamils, Tibetans, Basques, Kurds, Palestinians.”
Very amusing. I just changed it to:
“Broadcasting organs that don’t have the right to nationalcompulsory-public funding are likely to want it. Channel 4, ITV, Sky, (you know you want it)
It might need some canned laughter.
Hardy:
“And to take one of the more talked-about territorial disputes of our age, the State of Israel came about because some Jewish people wanted somewhere that a widely persecuted, dispersed, ethno-religious group could have a national home.”
"Some?" Ooh! Factually accurate? Possibly - but Jeremy Hardy’s palette of insulting witticisms cunningly diminishes Zionist Jews while alluding to ‘good‘ (anti-Zionist) Jews.
My version:
“And to take one of the more talked-about editorial disputes of our age, theBBC came about becauseJohn Reith wanted a platform; somewhere that a largely insular, ethno-religious group could be educated, informed and entertained.
Hardy:
“Sadly one of the things that shapes our identities is other people being bastards to us.
Me:
“Sadly one of the things that shapes Jeremy Hardy is that he is a bastard.
Hardy:
“Zionism was a mixture of secular nationalism, religious separatism and desperation. The main problem with the plan was that the place chosen already had people living there. Palestine was ruled by Turkey until the First World War, after which it fell under British colonial administration.”
(Oh dear. An allusion to “a land without a people for a people without a land!” Subtle or what. Plus “British colonial project” to boot!)
Instead, I put:
“The BBC was set up as an impartial and public service. The main problem with the plan was that many of the people running it were neither educated, informed nor entertaining. The BBC was run in accordance with the Royal Charter, after which it fell under the sovereignty of champagne socialists and ex commies.”
Hardy:
“Yes – I’m afraid it’s another one of ours: we who have been responsible for so many partitions and nearly got our comeuppance last week.”
What self-deprecating wit! I think I’ll call myself Laurel from now on.
Laurel:
“Yes – I’m afraid it’s another one of ours; we who have been responsible for so many petitions and an impartiality review, which nearly got the BBC itscomeuppance last year until it was suppressed to the tune of a six-figure legal injunction.”
Hardy:
The first British governor of Jerusalem, Sir Ronald Storrs, described the idea of the new Jewish homeland as ‘a little loyal Jewish Ulster in a sea of potentially hostile Arabism’. A prescient warning you might think, but this was a man speaking in favour of the idea. And the British encouraged significant Jewish migration on taking charge.”
(The emphases are BBC Watch’s. See here for more details.
Laurel again:
“The first British governor of the BBC, Sir John Reith,described the idea of the new British Broadcasting Corporation as:"to bring the best of everything to the greatest number of homes". A noble aspiration you might think, but this was a man speaking without the luxury of hindsight, or for that matter, insight. 'Being a son of the manse I was made a good deal of, but I had no friends of my own'
(more canned laughter)
Hardy:
“There is the narrative that Palestine had been an empty wasteland – which is a lie. Yes, the new arrivals were industrious: you’re not gonna get that many people turning up from Poland without seeing a lot more construction than the British would get. But there were already Palestinian towns, villages and farms, mosques and churches that had been there for centuries.”
He forgot to mention the century-old donkeys and olive trees? (The Laurel and Hardy joke is wearing thin now. )
Me again:
“There is the narrative that the British public had been an empty vessel – which is a lie. Yes, the BBCwas industrious: you’re not gonna get that many people turning up from the Guardianwithout seeing a lot more antisemitism than average. But there were already Pakistani majority towns, mosques and schools in Britain that had been there ever since the Labour party left the back door open.”
Hardy:
“Nevertheless, even some of Israel’s most passionate critics today are people who supported its founding in 1948. They argue that although Israeli governments are increasingly racist and colonial, the founding principles were noble.”
Me:
“Nevertheless, even some of the BBC’s most passionate critics today are people who supported its founding in the 1920s. They argue that although the BBC is increasingly racist and colonial, the founding principles were noble.
Hardy:
“Other critics would see even that view as rosy-spectacled but whatever you think about that period, the State of Israel exists and one of the frequent demands of its government is that others recognize its right to exist. I’m not sure any state has rights. Whether a person has rights is a moral question – they’re not like kidneys – but at least ethical judgments apply more sensibly to human beings. We’d all say a person has a right to a house. We wouldn’t say the house has rights. No-one thinks a house has a right to exist: certainly not an Israeli driving a bulldozer.”
( Dull-witted, cheap and politically lazy. Hardy has abandoned any pretense of delivering a comic monologue. It’s now clearly a pro-Palestinian diatribe espousing a particularly childish version of anti-Zionist propaganda)
Me:
“Other critics would see even that view as rosy-spectacled but whatever you think about that period, the BBCexists and one of the frequent demands of its governance is that others recognize its right to exist. I’m not sure any public service broadcasting has rights. Whether the BBC has rights is a moral question – it’s not like the UN – but at least ethical judgments apply more sensibly to human beings. We’d all say a person has a right to a television. We wouldn’t say the television has rights. No-one thinksJeremy Hardy has a right to broadcast: certainly not an Israeli listening to the radio.”
hollow laughter.
Hardy:
“Let’s imagine that all Israel’s critics recognize its right to exist as a de-facto state. That wouldn’t guarantee its continued existence in its present form or any other. Even now we don’t even know where its borders are supposed to be, so what are we ratifying? That’s what happens when you’re greedy: you keep getting bigger and bigger and bigger – people have trouble recognizing you.”
(Oh, those greedy Jews!)
Me:
“Let’s imagine that all the BBC’s critics recognize its right to exist as a de-facto reality. That wouldn’t guarantee its continued existence in its present form or any other. Even now we don’t even know what its obligationsare supposed to be, so what are we paying for? That’s what happens when you’re greedy: you keep getting bigger and bigger and bigger – you have trouble justifying yourself.”
(Oh, that expansionist BBC!) (You hardly need to change anything with this template, do you?)
[I’ve missed out a really boring chunk here about a one/two state solution. One, two, miss a few, ninety nine a hundred:]
My version of some of the boring bit:
“And there might be a publicly-fundedor subscription-only solution. Over time comedians and broadcasting organs come and go. [...]The BBC Trust further complicates matters by insisting it’s not only recognized as an authority, but as the arbiter of all broadcasting matters. But most journalistsdon’t work there; thankfully because they need us. “
Hardy:
“One of the most popular voices on Radio 4 is that of Michael Rosen – the non-Zionist Jewish poet and children’s author. It would have been our loss if his parents had decided to raise him in Israel rather than north London and what a horrible book ‘We’re Going on a Bear Hunt’ might have been.”
(read: ‘some of my friends are (good) Jews’.)
Me:
“One of the BBC’s most popular voices is that ofAbdel Bari Atwan – the pro Palestinian activist and top guest on Dateline. It would have been no loss if his parents had decided to raise him in Israel rather than the Gaza Strip and what an interesting book ‘the secret history of al Qaida’might have been. “
I picked ‘Bari’ at random; but I guess I could have *chosen few* others. Geddit.
H: “How many bears might have died on the pretext of the one he was looking for? Moreover, many Israelis have only little Jewish ancestry or none. Even without the occupied territories, a fifth of the population is Palestinian and demographics change and ideas about who we are change. […]
Me:
“How many martyrsmight have died on the pretext of the 72 virgins they were looking for? Moreover, many Arabs have only little Palestinian ancestry or none. […]
Actually, bored now. A fuller transcript of Jeremy Hardy’s side-splitting monologue is available on BBC Watch; that’s where I nicked it from, obviously. I didn’t listen to the original.
Suffice it to say falafels and curry feature later on, but no more laughs.
Thanks, Jeremy. I don’t think I’ll be Speaking To The Nation again. Shall we make a pact?
I haven’t anything original to add to the debate about the so-called art installation ‘Bethlehem Unwrapped” that has been erected outside St James’s Church Piccadilly, but the whole thing seems so ignominious and unhelpful that I want to say something, original or not.
The BBC seems to have avoided the subject, despite the fact that the Rev Lucy Winkett is involved, and Jeremy Hardy and Mark Steel are performing for the cause. They’re all all BBC regulars, and the BBC’s favourite popular philosopher of the spiritual kind, Giles Fraser, has ‘weighed in’ over at the Guardian.
The perpetrators of this, and other recent crude gestures, vehemently insist that they have nothing to do with antisemitism, but their actions creep closer and closer to the real thing. It’s as if they’re trying to see how close they can get to the precipice, like a game of racist chicken.
There’s a radio 4 ‘profile’ of Lucy Winkett, the rector of St. James’s Piccadilly. Apparently she has a marvelous singing voice, and is an all round good egg. Everyone questioned was unable to think of a single flaw the Rev Lucy might have. I can think of one.
“I’m Lucy Winkett rector of St. James’s Piccadilly. This Christmas we’ve built huge wall right across the front of our church. We’d really like you to come and see it because it’s what the people of Bethlehem are experiencing today.”
Mindlessly disseminating propaganda with antisemitic overtones is a flaw, surely. If Lucy Winkett has deluded herself into genuinely believing that the people of Bethlehem are entirely peace-loving, and not part of a movement calling for a third intifada, let’s hope the real wall stays in place so that her theory hasn’t a chance of being put to the test.
The Bethlehem Unwrapped director, Justin Butcher has something of the Will Self about him. I bet they’re mates. “We’ve spent eight months planning this replica of the separation wall” he boasts. “This is a festival of hope, reaching out to the people of Bethlehem behind the wall’ he continues. “an eight meter high separation wall surrounding it” proclaims he, inaccurately. He is delighted with himself for organising a childish stunt based on prejudice and ignorance and aligning the church with haters who indoctrinate their children and each other with the crudest most virulent antisemitism imaginable.
Don’t people look angelic when they gaze wistfully heavenwards? They are thinking pious thoughts about the poor peace-loving Palestinians who have been brutally separated from their prey.
“Stand up against the wall with Jeremy Hardy” announces Butcher. “Jeremy Hardy versus the Israeli army! Mark Steel!!” “Come down, make your mark on the wall. Send a message to the people of Bethlehem this Christmas”
“The River to the Sea” for example. “Free Palestine”, or how about a nice swastika fashioned out of the letter ‘S”. Peace! Stuff like that. Oh yes, and ‘This wall saves lives’
‘… opposes all forms of racism including antisemitism and supports the right of the State of Israel to exist with secure internationally recognised borders’.
But Melanie Phillips tends to be dismissed as a ‘she would say that” Zionist apologist, although she is a terrific writer, which must be irritating for those who don’t like her politics.
Melanie Phillips explains:
· The ‘wall’ does not surround Bethlehem.· For most of its length it is not a wall at all but a simple chain link fence.· It has been constructed not to oppress Palestinians but solely to prevent Israelis from being murdered by Arabs.· This security barrier has had to be built as a wall alongside one area of Bethlehem because a fence here – cheek by jowl with Jerusalem – would be insufficient to prevent the very real threat of some of its inhabitants murdering large numbers of Israelis.· The undoubted hardships caused by this barrier are solely the result of the ever-continuing attempts by some of those living behind it to murder yet more Israelis.· Since this security barrier was constructed, the number of Israelis murdered in terrorist attacks has decreased by some 70 per cent – while the number of attempted attacks remains high."
“Bethlehem is a real place cut off by a concrete wall and that it has very little in common with the fantasy, Narnia-like version that is the stuff of Christmas cards.” says Giles Fraser. Yes, and the Palestinians have very little in common with the three wise men, away in the manger and while shepherds wash their socks by night all seated round the tub. Or Santa Claus.
“The online reaction to this installation has also been predictably binary. For some it is a powerful testament to Israeli government brutality; for others it's another example of Christian antisemitism seeping into the liberal church. And some of the graffiti on the Piccadilly wall reflects this same for-us-or-against-us division. Some have written about its illegality under international law; others have written that this wall saves lives.”
The wisdom of Giles Fraser. A powerful testament to Israeli brutality? The brutality of separating innocent civilians from fanatics who have been whipped up into murderous frenzies with the same perverted zeal we saw only the other day in Woolwich.
“Thirteen times the shepherds thrust their knives into the women, breaking bones, tearing flesh, even impaling one to the ground. As the Jew played dead, she watched the ßChristian friend hacked to death before her very eyes.The shepherds returned home glorifying and praising Allah for all that they had seen and spread the word concerning what had they had done. ‘Today near the town of David two Jews have been slaughtered,’ they declared. They plotted and schemed, boasting to their neighbours, ‘this will be a sign, they will find two of their own, all meanly wrapped in bloody clothes and in the bushes laid.’ And everyone who heard of it, was amazed.”
A below-the-line commenter has countered her affecting testimony with tales of atrocities carried out by Israeli settlers who been given unforgivably lenient punishments by the Israeli courts for murdering innocent Palestinians. This appalls me, but there is one fundamental difference. Neither the Israeli public nor the Israeli press condone these aberrations. They do not erect statues to them, name streets after them glorify their actions or pay their families lifelong salaries. Using this argument to justify the St. James’s stunt is like bringing up Baruch Goldstein or Anders Breivik every time a Zionist or a right-wing commentator expresses an opinion one disagrees with.
My view of this barrier is quite different than that of these (pro Palestinian solidarity tourists) visitors. The heightened security for which it is responsible has changed all lives for the better. For local Israelis, its physical presence is felt only where, for a short distance, the barrier actually assumes the form of a wall. This is where Route 60 skirts the Arab town of Beit Ja’ala, south of Jerusalem and runs adjacent to Bethlehem. It is here, at the height of the Second Intifada, that automatic weapons were fired from rooftops in Beit Ja'ala onto the road. Today this extended wall strategically blocks the line-of-fire from the town onto this section of the highway. Apart from a single grey lookout tower positioned to oversee the southern end of Beit Ja’ala and the valley beneath it, there is nothing that suggests the wall's security purpose. There is no unsightly barbed wire; rather, its brick facade is stylized and decorated with shrubbery and young trees. At this point along its route the wall might be confused for a standard highway acoustical barrier. A different section of this wall situated closer to the eight-lane (four in each direction), permanent checkpoint is admittedly more ominous. It is much higher, rising some 25 feet, and its grey exterior is makes it appear much more foreboding. It would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, for potential suicide bombers to physically negotiate any section of this barrier, or for snipers to again menace the thousands of daily local commuters, Jews, Arabs, or even overseas tourists, that travel this highway. Along Route 60 near Beit Ja’ala the security barrier does not divide private Arab property. No one is physically separated from their workplace or field. In fact, a large vehicular and pedestrian tunnel, a complicated and costly engineering undertaking, was created beneath Route 60 to allow residents of Beit Ja’ala direct access to the neighboring village of Hussan. Foreign visitors are not impressed by this costly accommodation to the needs of local residents. In their eyes, this wall is an expression of human separation and repression. Even though it is a proven deterrent to terrorism, this barrier remains a sore in the eyes of every group I meet. As with the checkpoints, this barrier seems a greater evil in the eyes of many visitors than the murder of innocents at the hands of terrorists that is prevents.
Giles Fraser thinks the separation barrier is a monstrosity. So it may well be. But where the church is very wrong is in its implied conclusion, which is that tearing down the barrier would have a peaceful outcome. They might think abolishing restrictions on Palestinians’ everyday lives would amount to stage one on the rocky road to reconciliation, as though the Palestinians were a homogenous body of ManelaGhandis. They must surely know that is wishful thinking.
I understand that some of the organisers had not heard of the Fogel family, largely thanks to the BBC’s selective reporting. If the indeed the organisers have relied solely on the BBC to accurately and impartially report the Israel/Palestine situation, that would account for their dogged anti-Israel activism.
