Showing posts with label Oxfam. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Oxfam. Show all posts

Monday, 20 June 2016

Jo Cox (a few days later)

“Many of our young women don’t feel safe on the street.”
Who said such a thing? Nigel Farage, projecting a post Remain, Cologne-like future? Nah. It was Jo Cox, in a video she made for her report about Islamophobia.

Thankfully we don’t see many political assassinations in this country, so when one suddenly occurs the whole world is horrified. 

It was truly shocking last week to see and hear reports of Jo Cox MP being stabbed and shot outside her constituency office in broad daylight, and later hearing reports that she had died.
  
To make matters even more poignant, she was a young mother and a relatively new MP, and she had made quite an impression in the short time since being elected.

Most people immediately wondered what others made of it and rushed to see what the media had to say. Perhaps because journalists and bloggers regard topicality as their primary duty, several of them duly dished up an instant response. You might say they were stunned into the opposite of silence. 

This isn’t the first time people have made absolute idiots of themselves in similar circumstances; they should have known better, and I bet some of them wished they’d kept quiet, or waited till the dust had settled before making rash and reckless remarks  - at least until we figure out what’s going on, as Donald Trump might say.

Initially no-one was sure if Thomas Mair had really uttered ‘Britain First!” and anyone with the slightest sympathy with the Leave  campaign wished it were not so.  The ‘Leave’ campaign suffered an unquantifiable setback because of Mair’s apparent far-right associations, just as the Remain campaign would have suffered had the cry had not been “(Put) Britain First”, but “Allahu Ackbar”.

I don’t really think this murder had much to do with the referendum.  Mair was probably a closet Nazi all along, but nice and polite with it; a good son and mentally disturbed to boot. Paranoid schizophrenia, someone suggested, a theory somewhat borne out by his odd behaviour in court. Asked to confirm his name he replied:  ”"Death to traitors, freedom for Britain", a Breivik-like outburst that doesn’t sound much like a cold-blooded political statement from a ‘sound of mind’ Nazi - that is if cold-blooded Nazis can be sound of mind. We might get to find out more about that in due course.

I’ve spent hours looking online and following links, and I’ve come across some of the most virulent and abhorrent antisemitic bile on websites that contain white-supremacist Jew-hating comments. I wonder if they contravene the Incitement to Racial Hatred act.

One article looks at Jo Cox’s pet projects and spins them furiously in one particular direction and details some of her anti-Israel / pro-Palestinian activities; the comments below take things to a truly shocking level. 
 “honestly, anyone can keep my vote if you can get the jews out of white nations” 
one racist comment starts, and another one includes:
“If the above can be believed, the murder “…smells…” of something Jews would do.IMO, the BDS movement is another REAL fear that the Jewish Globalist King Pins have. I place their concern over the BDS movement on par with Holocaust Fraud Whistle-blowing or the rise of the “…Populist White…”. 
Remember Anders Brevik? The Norwegian Labour Party youth he murdered also had Labour MPs parents…, the same Party…, and correct me if I am wrong, that actually started the BDS movement against the Criminal State of Israel. 
It would be just like the Jews to kill a strong BDS supporter, then with moral outrage claim her murder was because of her Pro-EU stance and blame it on “…evil Nazis…”.
That website is one of many. (Don’t click on these links - they’re only there to illustrate a point.)

The extent to which the referendum campaign itself has turned rotten is illustrated by the rush to  blame Nigel Farage and the Leave campaign for Jo Cox’s murder, echoing the tortuous rationalisation that came to the conclusion that Melanie Phillips was responsible for Anders Breivik’s deranged killing spree. Take that argument to its logical conclusion and you will stifle freedom of speech altogether, and from those currently drifting in that direction I can already sense an ominous ‘chilling effect’. 

Today Norman Smith was asked by Sophie Raworth to reinterpret Nigel Farage’s defence of his stance on immigration and the infamous 'migrants' poster in particular, immediately after he had made it.

Norman wore a particularly furrowed brow as he systematically traduced Nigel Farage - throwing all pretence of impartiality out of the window. 

It’s possible to reach a stage where bias is so entrenched that you are completely unable to hear views that don’t align with yours. Psychological deafness, and Norman has a bad case of it. Quite why we need Norman to ‘interpret’ Nigel’s statement is beyond me. It was clear, concise and uttered in the English language, like it or not.

There is a difference between posturing in a borderline incendiary manner and explicitly inciting violence and we must concede it can be a fine line. However, in this day and age, as far as I’m aware, Islam stands alone in the unequivocal prescription of death to transgressors. 

When deranged Muslims pull a trigger or plunge a knife into some hapless infidel to the triumphant cry of Allahu Ackbar, it could inspire an unhinged individual like Mair to actually mirror that. Maybe his personality disorder drove him to hook a murderous, psychotic impulse to a far-right cause, much as Omar Mateen seems to have done with ISIS and his alleged repressed homosexuality. (Amateur psychology / free of charge.)

Jo Cox is said to have been an exceptional character, hardworking, sincere, energetic and charismatic. She wanted to make the world a better place.  The effect of her murder is wholly and completely negative and her family is suffering a tragic loss. 

I disagree with her politics. Jo Cox’s kind of activism rings alarm bells for me, as does her husband’s choice of the charity Hope Not Hate as one of three beneficiaries of donations pouring in to honour her memory.

She was a staunch supporter of the Palestinian cause, and wanted parliament to grant premature recognition of Palestine as a state. She was an advocate of BDS and she spoke in favour of councils and other non-political bodies being free to employ BDS as a policy should they wish to do so.

I can’t see how anyone who campaigns for BDS can genuinely pride themselves on bringing people together. It’s as disingenuous as Jeremy Corbyn’s excuse, when cornered, for applying the term ‘friends’ to Hamas and Hezbollah.

She had been a employee of Oxfam, another ostensibly altruistic charity that became politicised; lefty, actively anti-Israel and pro Palestinian. 

From The Telegraph, 10th June 2014.
” Jo Cox, a former head of policy at Oxfam, is Labour’s candidate in the 2015 general election in Batley and Spen as well as chairman of the Labour women’s network. [...] 
Rob Halfon added: "Too often Oxfam put politics before their excellent charity work. No ones denies that we have been having difficult times, but for a charity to appear to put all the blame on the current Government is unacceptable. 
"Moreover, Oxfam seem to have developed a leftist anti-Israel agenda, and I hope very much that those involved will think again, and Oxfam will once again become a charity that people respect."
I kept trying to imagine how I’d feel if the murdered MP had been on ‘my’ side. What if some antisemite had stabbed and killed a pro-Israel MP?  But, in sharp contrast to the proliferation of MPs who are passionately sympathetic to Jo Cox’s favourite causes, I could hardly think of one. I suppose if that did happen I’d feel a personal sense of loss too.

Many people seem unruffled at the prospect of a limitless influx of refugees from Muslim countries, but I think we should be very concerned about the inevitable political pandering that would be bound to follow. More MPs beholden to the Muslim vote, more hatred of Jews, more demonisation of Israel and more isolation and alienation for British Jews.  

One of the best pieces I’ve read is by Brendan O’Neil, which I swear I hadn’t read before writing the above, but which, if I flatter myself, chimes with mine even down to some of the terms used. 

The most amusing thing I’ve read today is in the Times, and it concerns Jo Cox’s recent project on Islamophobia.  She’d had a meeting with “tell Mama” to find out what she could do to help combat Islamophobia, locally. 

Since one of her stated objectives was 'bringing people together,' she might at least have listened to the worries of constituents whose misgivings over creeping Islamisation might be well-founded. She was elected to serve their needs too, surely.

Anyway, she said anti-Islam attitudes are so bad in her constituency that ”many of our young women don’t feel safe when they’re out in the street”.

I liked it so much I nicked it for my headline.

I’m sticking my neck out by making negative comments about someone who clearly had so many admirable qualities, but I don’t begrudge the tributes to Jo Cox that are pouring in from those who knew or admired her. 

If me or my opinions were more important we might merit some specially dedicated, extremely anguished brow-furrowing from Norman Smith, and a few innuendos about racism, bigotry and Islamophobia thrown in for good measure. 

But I’m not, it ain’t so it won’t.

Monday, 14 July 2014

“No Palestinian will believe that”

If the global, Islam-fuelled turbulence surrounding us hasn’t opened the eyes of the BBC’s reporters, particularly the one recently billeted in Baghdad, what hope is there that the average liberal, multicultural TV viewer residing in the UK will ever open theirs?


How will the paying public get a balanced picture of the current Hamas/Israel crisis, while the BBC’s reporting remains hobbled within the limiting editorship of Jeremy Bowen? The longer the violence continues the more the Bowen-approved reportage deteriorates into a bottomless pit of injured Palestinian civilians, context-free and divisive.

The BBC is lumbered with him. As the BBC’s Middle East editor he’s supposed to be their senior, most up-to-date specialist in Middle Eastern affairs, a role that carries a big responsibility. Jeremy Bowen seems old fashioned, lagging behind contemporary thinking, and he’s tainted by his own personal history. 
His protégé Yolande Knell seems equally partial. Since she’s been in Gaza she appears to have gone native, her pronunciation is full-on local and she gives off a whiff - an air - of  visceral disdain for the Jewish state.
At the moment the BBC, with Bowen at the helm, is reduced to wallowing in images of war. It’s evident that they’re stuck for ideas. They’ve concluded that background and context are superfluous to lashings of copious heart-rending, blood-spattered hospital footage.
As long as Hamas keeps the images of dead and injured children coming, Jeremy Bowen and his team do their bit to hasten impassioned calls for a unilateral Israeli ceasefire on humanitarian grounds.
Everyone wants an immediate ceasefire, apart from Hamas and Israel. Israel want it very much too, but needs the ceasefire to be long-lasting and permanent, and not just another breathing space for Hamas to consolidate and re-arm. Hamas appears content to create martyrs indefinitely.

Continuing the hostilities doesn’t suit Israel. It’s costly to Israel in all senses. Hamas should simply stop the violence and concentrate on establishing the state the Palestinians say they want. Is Jeremy Bowen the only one who doesn’t know why they don’t do this?

Which is the side that doesn’t care about loss of life? Not Israel. They care very much. 
Who glorifies martyrdom? Not the Israelis. They love life.

Jeremy Bowen says: “The Israelis say they do what they can to avoid killing civilians, but no Palestinian will believe that.” If you say so, Mr editor in chief.

The BBC interviews someone from Oxfam. Oxfam is partisan. According to Oxfam the proportion of civilians killed and injured far exceeds that of ‘militants’. They have the figures from Palestinian sources and the UN. Before issuing accurate statistics the IDF waits till the names are released and can be identified properly, either as members of Hamas or innocent civilians  

The number of women and children killed and injured is very disturbing, and for the BBC to conceal the fact that some innocent Palestinians have been deliberately put in harm’s way clouds the issue and makes Israel look inhumane; exactly as Hamas intends.

A youthful, trendily bespectacled Palestinian speaker is consulted for BBC News 24.“Why doesn’t Hamas stop firing rockets at Israel?” asks the BBC News 24 anchor (Sophie Long, I think) for openers.  The young fellow parrots the words of Manuel Hassassian.
“We first have to address the core issue,” says he. “Why is Israel occupying Palestinian lands? Why doesn’t Israel go back to its pre 1967 borders? Why does Israel impose a blockade on Gaza?”

I think the answer is already there in the original question, but the lady is too ‘nice’ to say so.

Thursday, 6 February 2014

Who cares?

When I say that BBC insiders seem to be the only sentient beings who are unaware that the BBC’s influence is wielded irresponsibly, in the willy-nilly manner of those who don’t know their own strength, I immediately think of the way that your man in the street regards Israel. (sigh)

The recent news concerning Scarlett Johansson and the SodaStream factory, together with the Bethlehem Unwrapped debacle highlighted the magnitude of wrong assumptions that are generally held about Israel. Both these newsworthy occurrences showed how widespread is the reach of the BBC, with the inextricable Guardianista, left-wing affiliation that they steadfastly deny. Between them, no doubt boosted by the Islam factor, the BBC/Guardian umbrella has succeeded in vilifying Israel over decades, so that the word ‘Zion’ is now more or less analogous to ‘Nazi’, not just because of those spikey Zs and Ns, but because of the inverted ‘holocaust survivors turned oppressors’ meme that one casually encounters when least expecting it.

Incidentally, I have noticed a slight shift in BTL comments on Telegraph and Guardian blogs, especially since Daniel Birnbaum came on the scene, i.e. Newsnight. People are beginning to think.


“The settlements impoverish the Palestinians” Said Mr. Oxfam determinedly. Paxo tried to force Mr. Oxfam to admit it wants to shut SodaStream down and put 500 Palestinians out of work. He did it in a manner reminiscent of that infamous and hugely childish Paxo/Michael Howard stunt. But Oxfam wouldn’t. It merely repeated, in an almost equally repetitious fashion that the objection was “to settlements”. Despite the fact that Birnbaum trounced Mr. Oxfam, Paxo of the BBC still failed to grapple with the fundamentals such as why there is “an occupation” what are “settlements” and what is the biggest cause of Palestinians’ hardship. 
Elder of Ziyon wished Paxo had asked: "In the case of a peace agreement where the Sodastream factory ends up in Israel, would you want it to employ Palestinians?" 
(The factory is in an area that has been virtually allocated to Israel under the terms of land swaps already agreed by both sides.)
"How about in case of a peace agreement and it ends up in Palestine, would you allow an Israeli company like Sodastream to invest in the Pal areas?" 

"Then how does it make sense to insist they close today if it would remain in operation and employing Arabs no matter which side of the border it ends up on?"

Birnbaum allowed several defamatory and spurious accusations about settlements and illegality to pass, a necessary sacrifice in view of time constrains and the need to focus on the SodaStream issue. Nevertheless by concentrating on the benefits SodaStream brings to the Palestinian workers and the detrimental effect on them should Oxfam have their wish and the factory be removed, Birnbaum won the argument. I think and hope that any ‘undecideds‘ out there would have seen through Oxfam’s anti-Israel  bluster.

As for as the Bethlehem Unwrapped fiasco, I saw a video of the cringemaking closing ceremony. I spotted our old friend Zeinab Badawi amongst the attendees. Nigel Kennedy bounced up and down with his Kaffiyeh-clad mates and some Palestinian “dancers” cavorted around amateurishly. Justin Butcher thanked Lucy Winkett, and gave her  a “certificate”, and Lucy Winkett hugged Justin Butcher and thanked him for organising such a successful event. They both beamed with pleasure at their accomplishment (stirring up Jew-bashing.) The finale consisted of dancers streaming symbolically through the section of symbolic torn-down wall, accompanied by chants of “Free, Free, Palestine”. 

If that wasn’t agenda-driven outright Jew-bashing I don’t know what is.


I’d also like to mention something in a piece by Ed West, in which he is broadly sympathetic to Israel over some of these issues.   It’s just this bit:

“Still, many of the internet supporters of Israel are not exactly nuanced either, refusing to see fault in anything it does;.”

When people stop querying Israel’s right to exist its supporters can be free to criticise her without her enemies seizing on anything and everything negative and amplifying it to suit their hatred. “Refusing to see fault” is as unfair as it’s untrue. It’s only from a position of security that one can afford to self-critcise.  Ed West is being insensitive. He’s taking out each-way insurance. Covering himself against every eventuality by defending Israel whilst keeping in with the Jew-bashers and not aligning himself with Zionists.