Are e-petition debates useless?

Since I brought this matter to your attention I felt duty bound to watch the debate at Westminster Hall yesterday. It was billed as an e-petitiion debate on BBC bias, but the entire caboodle was hijacked by the over 75s licence fee debacle. 

The proposed withdrawal of the existing BBC tax exemption or the over 75s is certainly a worthy cause, and the majority of the near-identical speeches on that topic put the blame on the government for passing the buck to the poor cash-strapped BBC, which apparently was left with little choice. I mean how else are they going to maintain Gary Lineker? 

In total, throughout the whole repetitive process, in total, I’d say about two and a half references to the BBC’s actual bias could be detected. If one managed to stay awake.

One speaker made a fleeting observation that the BBC was virtually the mouthpiece of the Guardian. 

There was a lengthy complaint from Clive Lewis. You may be able to guess the type of bias he was worried about. For added emphasis, he cited that dog-eared study by that bastion of impartiality and rigorous academic integrity, Cardiff University. 

There was one other speech that focused on the issue of bias. Graham Stringer MP went into considerable detail about the scandal surrounding a ‘set-up’.

“The BBC procured and presented on BBC Three, when it was a channel, a series of programmes called “People Like Us”. That was based in the ward that I used to represent as a councillor and that is still in the constituency I represent. Frankly, it was poverty porn. It gave the most distorted view of one of the poorest wards in the country. 

Depending on how we count these things—it is not a competition that any ward or constituency wants to win—Harpurhey is the poorest or the third poorest ward in the country. Cameras went along and the people making the programme pretended—it was a pretence—that they were following how people in Harpurhey lived. They were not; they were distorting it. They paid girls to fight each other. They opened a pub and created a most peculiar party of transvestites. I ​have nothing against transvestites, but that kind of situation had never happened in that particular public house, which was being closed for a couple of years. They got a pretend landlord in to talk about how he was very happy for his tenants to take drugs. It was clearly a put-up job. And some of the people who said outrageous things were taken on holiday by the company doing this. 

It was a shocking and terrible thing, and I do not believe that if people from that kind of background had been part of the BBC, that programme would ever have been made. Fortunately, there was not a second series. The head of BBC Three was good enough to see me and Councillor Karney, who represented the ward. I do not know whether it was down to our lobbying, but there was not a second series.”

He also touched briefly on other issues - climate change and Brexit, but that was it.

Many of the speakers were wildly complimentary about the BBC, some inadvertently damning it with faint praise with their emotional pleas that elderly people rely on it 'for company'.  

It was almost as if they hadn’t watched it since 1970. They say MPs are out of touch. I know we at ITBB are a bit geeky about it, but this was a demo of 'Westminster bubble gawn mad'.

Newsnight, Hair, a giant baby and a bit more

This is a series of observations I would have posted earlier if I’d had time. Some of it might be past its use-by date, but what the hell.

++++++++

What a dilemma, whether to watch Newsnight with Kirsty Wark (afraid of missing something after last week’s spat with Tommy Robinson) or succumb to a nagging desire to watch Question Time. (afraid of missing something) You have to keep an eye on these things.

Switching back and forth between them, I stumbled upon a bizarre exchange between Ann Coulter and Laurie Penny,  in some ways chalk and cheese, and in other ways cheese and cheese.

A surprise location switch found Ms. Coulter in the studio with Kirsty and Laurie Penny in the US against a backdrop of the Hollywood sign, culturally appropriating LA speech patterns and saying “right now” instead of “at the moment". The interview concerned Fake News, a subject close to the hearts of these interviewees with their diametrically opposed interpretations of what is ‘news’ and what is fake.

Ms. Penny was convinced that journalists (like her) were the sole purveyors of truth, while Ms. Coulter said decisively 

 “The internet is the only place you can get the truth.” 

The discourse  became increasingly ludicrous, but Kirsty eclipsed both guests by calling people who doubted the absolute integrity and honesty of the BBC “despots” 

“Aren’t you aiding the despots who say “it’s all about fake news from CNN even the BBC, so we won’t believe it?” You are aiding people by undermining the probity of the mainstream media?” 

Ms. Coulter, never known to be lost for words, was in full flow, when Kirsty turned to Ms. Penny.

“Are you finished!” said Laurie Penny. “May I speak now? Are you finished?” 

she said menacingly in her tiny penetrating voice. 

“Now Miss Coulter is a troll, with no credibility, and so is her president” 

said she, looking suspiciously troll-like herself.

This must have been desperate attempt to boost the ratings, as Newsnight must have known there was no conceivable prospect of meaningful dialogue between these particularly outspoken, ideologically opposed polemicists, specially when there was no time to progress beyond a slanging match and with a host whose speech is so slurred and nasal you have to wonder why she is a host.  

++++++++++

Continuing ITBB’s popular series of posts dedicated to hair. (Episode 3) 

I spotted “Next: hair.” at the top of the screen as I watched The Daily Politics this afternoon.  (The other day, now) Naturally I was excited and I knew immediately where they got the idea. (here!)

The discussion was strictly confined to politicians’ hair, but I suspect Jo Coburn surreptitiously plumped up hers, which had been looking rather flat, while the cameras were focussing on celebrity hairdresser Nicky Clarke as he slid into the studio to explain Donald Trump, which he was unable to do. 

Even the comedians on programmes like Mock the Weak Week sound bored with Trump while wearily churning out their tedious Trumpisms.

extreme short back and sides

Images of obvious hair-centric politicians, Boris and both Michaels Heseltine and Fabricant were shown, as well as (for some reason) Tony Blair and Gordon Brown while real man of the moment, hair-wise, Kim Jong Un, was conspicuously absent. After all, his extreme haircut has conquered the world with the trend for short back and sides. Celebrity hairdresser Nicky Clarke, modelling a fetching Lauren Bacall style, is about the only man-about-town with whom this fashion hasn’t caught on. Luckily for Andrew Neil, he wasn’t present, or there may have been some sniggering in the background. He seemed to be sporting a new toupee when I last saw him discussing PMQs with Laura Kuenssberg.

Lauren Bacall

******

Oh dear what shall I do with my Saturday evenings now that Spiral has finished? The series ended on an enigmatic note, and will be returning when we’ve all forgotten how we left it.

One thing I do know; if that baby continues to grow at the rate she’s ballooned since birth, she’s gonna be massive by then.

*******

Has anyone else noticed the way the BBC’s man in Jerusalem, Tom Bateman, has been prefacing or appending information that comes from Israeli sources with “Israel says” even when reporting something it seems Israel didn’t exactly say. Oh yes, BBC Watch has noticed, and more besides.

This sounds almost as if Bateman is terrified - either for himself,  for the BBC in general or on behalf of the puffed-up Middle East Editor — of sounding like an “Israeli shill”, which is the boilerplate term Israel-haters are inclined to throw at the BBC to intimidate them, and and make them stop sounding as though they ‘believe’, or heaven forbid, approve of anything an Israeli spokesperson might utter.

I’m no particular fan of Sky, but their man on the spot doesn’t seem to need to use caution-laden qualifiers in that way.

+++++++++

I once knew a sexually voracious and predatory chap who worked for Oxfam. Young girls were slightly in awe of him, which made him feel important.  I believe he was ‘let go’ from his post. Huge charities nearly always turn out to be rabidly political, like War on Want and Amnesty International etc etc. and I am wary of them all. 

I have a feeling that this kind of sexually predatory behaviour has been going on in these circles for a very very long time but I don’t know how long the antisemitism has been part of the remit.

***********

I watched the replay of this debate that took place in Westminster Hall on 7th. It was shown on the Parliament channel this morning. Children in detention. (In Israel)

All the usual anti-Israel MPs had their say, as did the small number of pro-Israel MPs, most notably Matthew Offord. 

You wouldn’t get a sense of this from Hansard, but there was some disturbing background noise, including some whoops and cheering from the public gallery. The debate was brought by Sarah Champion who was looking very pleased with herself. 

Ahed Tamimi has a strong fan base in the Labour Party, and the degree of animosity towards “Israel”  (if that’s how they want us to  see it) is based on superficial (mis)understanding of history. This is Gathering Storm territory. Goebbels would be proud.

Odd omission

Yesterday (14th September) a mini debate  took place in Westminster Hall:

David Davies Chair, Welsh Affairs Committee  4:08 pm, 14th September 2016

“I beg to move, That this House has considered the BBC and political impartiality.”

Mr. Davies was concerned with the BBC’s bias, (to the political left) in particular its overtly partisan attitude to Brexit and its unscientific treatment of climate change. He also objected to the BBC’s habit of referring to extremists of the Muslim faith as ‘conservative’.

Maybe Mr. Davies doesn’t know a great deal about the BBC’s bias against Israel and its pro-Palestinian stance on all matters ‘Middle East’, but it was disappointing that the Minister of State (Department for Culture, Media and Sport) (Digital Policy) Matthew Hancock didn’t seem aware of it either. 

Matthew Hancock:

“It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. It is also a pleasure to address this incredibly important issue at an auspicious time, because the new BBC charter for the next period is due to be published tomorrow. The debate is important and timely, […] 

I also agree with my hon. Friend on the importance of genuine impartiality, which is the nub of his speech and the purpose of this debate. It is worth briefly going through why impartiality is important and what is in place to ensure that it happens. As the charter review has shown, everybody will agree that the BBC is at the heart of British culture. I think the BBC is one of the nation’s most treasured institutions, and there is broad agreement that, as a public service broadcaster funded by the licence fee, it is vital that accurate and impartial news is at the centre of the BBC’s output. So far, so good.”

The debate is worth watching if only for remarks by Sammy Wilson Shadow DUP Spokesperson (Treasury), Shadow DUP Spokesperson (Work and Pensions), Shadow DUP Spokesperson (Education) who seemed aware of the BBC’s bias and its influence on public opinion

Sammy Wilson:

“Does the Minister accept that that is a rather circular argument? The BBC’s monopoly and the huge amount of resources it gets from public finances have allowed it to become the main news organisation in the United Kingdom. If the bias with which it presents the news becomes mainstream, of course it is going to be accepted as a trustworthy organisation, but only because it has been able to use its power to mould the views of the population. That is why the question of the licence fee and impartiality is important.”

It is especially remarkable that Matthew Hancock had nothing to say about the BBC’s anti-Israel agenda, since he was one of the MPs that was in Israel in February as part of a trade delegation. I understand that at that time several MPs went to a presentation by Palestinian Media Watch. Whether Mr. Hancock was there I can’t be sure, but he really should be aware of the BBC’s appalling bias against Israel. He does agree that impartiality is important, which makes it all the more peculiar that he hasn’t said a word.

“Not giving money to so-called terrorists”

“Not giving money to so-called terrorists”

So said so-called Diane Abbott towards the end of Monday’s parliamentary debate about foreign aid, which took place at Westminster Hall.  

This was the debate that ‘we’ instigated by signing a petition organised by OMG-The-Mail-on-Sunday. 

It was brought about the Mail’s revelation that money donated by the UK through our aid programme has been finding its way into the hands of Palestinian terrorists. It funds the salaries and stipends of convicted terrorists or the families of deceased martyrs.

The petition quickly received enough signatures to warrant a parliamentary debate, but people signed because they objected far more to funding terrorism than to the principle of funding foreign aid itself. 

In other words, even though 0.7% of our gross national income might well be a big boost to our own underfunded services, the Mail’s indignation was directed against the lack of scrutiny of how the money is being spent and not against foreign aid per se.

However, as these things tend to do, the debate was diluted, a bit like the inquiry into antisemitism in the Labour Party (more of which later) which was expanded to embrace “All racism” or the Holocaust memorial commemorations which certain people insisted had to include “All” holocausts. In the spirit of inclusivity, this debate had to include “All” foreign aid.

You can read the transcript here, but I’ve just selected the bits that I deem relevant to the original petition. You can watch the whole thing here:

The debate was  opened by Steve Double MP for St Austell and Newquay. 

“Mr Double, a devout Christian and lay preacher, employs his wife as a senior caseworker alongside assistant Sarah, who is currently on compassionate leave.”

Far be it for me to cast aspersions on a devout Christian lay preacher who prides himself on  standing for”the traditional fabric of family and community life”  who happens to have been caught with his pants down so to speak, but I have to say the holier than thou stuff emanating from Mr Double Standards is a bit rich.

The debate got off to a good start with Mr. Double refusing to believe that any of DFID’s  funding goes to terrorists. 

Steve Double 

“ There are many myths out there relating to foreign aid spending. One example is that aid money from British and European taxpayers has gone to Palestinian prisoners, including terrorists. That is simply not true. Another is that UK aid to the Palestinian Authority funded an £8 million presidential palace. Again, that is simply not true. The myths go on and on, and they are based on out-of-date information or inaccurate reporting. The Government have been very clear on that.”

The debate might as well have ended there and then. The whole point of the petition was that it did and does go to Palestinian terrorists and other corrupt items , so why not pack up and go home? But no, there’s copious virtue signalling to get through first, which I'll ignore for the purpose of this post.

Ian Austin (Labour Dudley North) piped up: 

“The hon. Gentleman is right about the good work that DFID does, but he is completely wrong to say it is a myth that the Palestinian Authority fund terrorists. The fact is that nearly all of DFID’s funding in the region goes directly to the Palestinian Authority. That is a matter of concern because of the allegation that the Palestinian Authority continue to fund payments to convicted terrorists and their families, which is in direct contradiction to the demands of the international community.”

Alan Duncan was soon off the mark, stating:

 “it would be a tragedy—indeed, it would be repulsive—if it was hijacked by those who want to use it to demonise Palestine and Palestinians? The debate should concentrate on the 0.7% and only that.”

Sir Alan’s dislike of Jews trumps the unpalatable thought that he wouldn’t last long (as a gay man) under the PA or Hamas. 

Over the page, more of the best bits.

Raise your hands if you agree with me......

Piers Corbyn's excitement at the prospect of his brother's "friends" attacking Israel: https://t.co/UhtWMllQWx pic.twitter.com/EyPrbHPq8E

— Alex Wickham (@WikiGuido) April 4, 2016

A series of tweets by Jeremy Corbyn’s meteorologist brother leave little doubt that Piers Corbyn  is a staunch anti-Zionist with unmistakably antisemitic inclinations.  When challenged over retweeting an antisemitic conspiracy theorist’s Tweet: “Isn’t it odd that ISIS has not touched Israel’s oil pipeline?” he pleaded that he only did so “to get an answer.” 

This response is eerily reminiscent of his brother’s excuse for befriending Hamas and Hezbollah (to engage with them) that one has to agree that -  as Jeremy himself says - there is indeed a strong familial similitude.

Today the hard-left Labour leader defended his brother saying: “No, my brother isn’t wrong”. 

Questioned by The Sun after a speech in Harlow, Essex, the Leader of the Opposition added: “My brother has his point of view, I have mine and we actually fundamentally agree - we are a family that were brought up fighting racism from the day we were born.”

How can Jeremy Corbyn actually say, with a straight face, that he’s been fighting racism since ”the day we were born”, when he’s been speaking at rallies and chairing meetings alongside some of the most rabidly antisemitic individuals and actively campaigning against Israel - probably “from the day we were born”?  

It all boils down to those claims that “anti-Zionism is nothing to do with antisemitism” and its sibling “legitimate criticism of the actions of the Israeli government is not antisemitic”.

Which brings me to this:

Britain’s ex-chief rabbi Jonathan Sacks has written an opinion piece in Newsweek.

“Anti-Zionism is the new antisemitism”

“Something is clearly happening, but what? Many on the left argue that they are being wrongly accused. They are not against Jews, they say, only opposed to the policies of the state of Israel. Here one must state the obvious. Criticism of the Israeli government is not anti-Semitic. Nor is the BDS movement inherently anti-Semitic. Many of its supporters have a genuine concern for human rights. It is, though, a front for the new anti-Semitism, an unholy alliance of radical Islamism and the political left.” 

“Anti-semitism is a virus that survives by mutating. In the Middle Ages, Jews were hated because of their religion. In the 19th and 20th centuries they were hated because of their race. Today they are hated because of their nation state, Israel. Anti-Zionism is the new anti-Semitism” 

“Anti-Semitism is a form of cognitive failure. It reduces complex problems to simplicities. It divides the world into black and white, seeing all the fault on one side and all the victimhood on the other. It singles out one group among a hundred offenders for the blame. It silences dissent and never engages in self-criticism. The argument is always the same. We are innocent; they are guilty. It follows that if we—Christians, members of the Aryan race or Muslims—are to be free, they, the Jews, or the state of Israel must be destroyed. That is how the great crimes begin.”

The comments below the line clearly show that antisemitism is alive and kicking.

“legitimate criticism of the actions of the Israeli government is not antisemitic” might well be technically correct, but it rather depends on what is meant by ‘legitimate’. Since most criticisms of the Israeli government relate to actions taken to protect Israeli citizens from all manner of murderous attacks the interpretation of ‘legitimacy’ is ultimately a matter of opinion.

Antisemites interpret most of the Israeli government’s actions as illegitimate, simply because they don’t accept the right of Israel to exist as the Jewish state, and that is simply because they have wilfully swallowed an ahistorical Palestinian version of events surrounding Israel’s inception; therein lies the problem. They have absorbed a peculiar one-sided, racist, narrative - and that’s the way they like it.

If they truly believe that there is a thing called Muslim Land, which solely and immutably  belongs to Palestinian Arabs who are the true indigenes, while Jewish Israelis are merely interlopers and colonialists, that Palestinian Arabs and their descendants, amounting to several million people who have been inculcated with intense Jew-hatred “since they were born”  should be allowed to exercise their “right to return’, then what else can you expect than “from the river to the sea”?

This is where the BBC comes in. It’s the duty of the BBC, in the light of increasing antisemitism, to put the record straight. First they need to educate themselves, then they can begin. 

But I fear it’s way too late. There was a debate the other day in Westminster Hall about “Local government and ethical procurement”. MPs  discussed whether councils should be able to apply BDS - that is BDS against Israel in particular, and as an afterthought (lest anyone should deem that racist) BDS in general in case any local council suddenly feels passionate about some cause or other and wishes to demonstrate displeasure in practical terms.

It came to my attention belatedly; the debate took place on 15th March, and was secured by a well known anti-Zionist MP, Richard Burden Birmingham Northfield) (Lab). The issue was: 

“the procurement policy note issued by the Cabinet Office on 17 February entitled “Putting a stop to public procurement boycotts” and about the proposed changes to the rules governing the local government pension scheme’s investments—for which I understand the Cabinet Office is also responsible, for some reason” 

Nothing to do with his personal wish to BDS Israel or his desire to allow local councils to boycott, divest and sanction Israel to their hearts' content. Just legitimate criticism of the Israeli government and to stand up for the rights of the Palestinians. Never mind what happened with SodaStream, it’s a matter of principle. 

It’s absurd that Zionists can’t cope with anyone supporting rights for Palestine. 

“Comments from Zionists like Merseyside MP Louise Ellman prompted Piers Corbyn, 69, to tweet: “ABSURD! JC + All #Corbyns are committee #AntiNazi. #Zionists cant cope with anyone supporting rights for #Palestine”.

Most of the usual haters attended. They heavily outnumbered the members who turned up to oppose the motion.  Louise Ellman wasn’t there and who could blame her.

Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con) gave an impassioned speech opposing BDS, but it fell on deaf ears. 

The consensus was definitively with BDS. The BDSers continually referred to “illegal settlements” with such certainty that one might almost think they knew what they were talking about. They manifestly believed it themselves. The experts. 

Did you know that there is a branch of Fatah in the UK? It’s called Fatah UK, and it has sponsored a visit to ‘Palestine’. One can assume that was the source of such certainty.  

One of the most troubling segments in one particular speech was this speculation about the danger of the government’s decision to put a stop to public procurements boycotts:

Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)

“Can the Minister explain what he thinks the effect will be on race relations in my constituency, which has a large number of people of Muslim faith from a background of Pakistan, Bangladesh, Yemen, Somalia and Somaliland? What would be the impact on them if they saw their council tax being used to buy goods from the illegal Israeli settlements?”

This person had such a hangdog look on his face that I almost felt sorry for him. Imagine being at the mercy of that multicultural pressure group? Can’t be much fun. (But why is it that his constituents from such diverse origins should automatically be ‘impacted’ by their local council procuring goods from Israel or “illegal settlements” ? What business is it of theirs? 

It can’t really be because they want to help the Palestinians, some of whom would be deprived of the productive, materially beneficial employment they currently enjoy, should BDS be applied. No, it’s just simple antisemitism. Racism.  

It makes your heart sink, seeing such a pathetic, spiteful, racist pantomime being performed at the heart of our supposed democracy. 

But that’s nothing, compared to what’s in store for the future.  Did you see the press reports (not the BBC)  about that BDS meeting of a student council at Edinburgh University? 

"Student broke ‘safe space’ rules by raising arm." 

 

Imogen Wilson

“In my year as a sabbatical officer I’ve witnessed a horrific rise in anti-Semitism on university campuses all over the UK. Unsurprisingly, the speeches in favour of BDS were quick to silence cries of anti-Semitism, claiming that BDS isn’t meant to harm Jewish students, and is about the liberation of Palestinians.” 

I’m proud of the work that student unions do for women, BME, LGBT+ and disabled groups of students. However, the ignorance of the struggles that Jewish students face on campus is astounding from people who fight so hard for the liberation of other oppressed groups.

Hands up if you support this thoughtful student. (!)

Here’s a comment appropriated from below the line of the aforementioned article:

KHALED NAJJAR APR 04, 2016 - 02:44 PM“....My name is Khaled Najjar, I’m a Palestinian living in Luxembourg. My entire family lives in Palestine (in the west bank). Since 3 of my brothers and my cousin all work in Israeli companies, I can tell you the BDS movement is by no means a movement supported by most Palestinians. while it is popular by many in Europe, it is economically lethal for the majority of households in Palestine. you might think you are supporting Palestinians when in fact, they are the very first to be hurt from boycotting Israeli firms (aka – their own work places, which put bread on their table and pay their pension). 

As I hear a lot of this BDS talk where I live, I clearly see it is done in good heart and good intentions (mostly by good people). It is just not promoting in any way a Palestinian state, and it also prevents establishing economic joint-ventures between Palestinian and Israeli companies, and by doing so, preventing the Palestinian economy from standing of its feet.”

So there you are. I rest my case.

Update (H/T Harry’s Place)

Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell was today caught in his party’s growing anti-Semitism storm after directing people to a website that has carried “tributes” to suicide bombers.Labour MPs reacted with fury after learning that in 2014 Mr McDonnell linked from his own web page to the site, which once carried sympathetic articles about at least two bombers.One of the pieces focused on a man who murdered 19 Israelis outside a nightclub.Among other archived articles carried on the site was one posted in 2002 claiming Israel has no right to exist and should be “dismantled”.

Another little list

With all the violence that’s being waged around the world, certain people must’ve thought the temporary hiatus in the BBC’s obsessive ferreting for negative news stories about Israel needed redressing. Never mind, Sarah Champion is on the case. 

The MP for Rotherham organised a debate in Westminster Hall: 

“I beg to move,

That this House has considered child prisoners and detainees in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.

Some might ask themselves, why would an MP from one of the most troubled constituencies in the UK be so concerned with the Palestinians? Stupid question. 

She is beholden to constituents from a default culture of Israel-hating / antisemitism. So initiating this debate would be a popular move for the Corbynite MP who belatedly noticed the massive abuse by ‘Asian’ men that was being perpetrated upon young girls in her constituency. 

July 2014

It seems that this debate was somewhat rushed. It appeared to be almost as time-poor as those vitally consequential interviews on the Today programme, which are always tantalisingly terminated  just as they seem to be getting to the interesting bit, often mid sentence, only to go to some annoying trailer or the weather forecast or sport or a particularly spurious impenetrable Thought for the Day.

During the debate people kept asking speakers to give way, but they kept refusing, crying “No! I will not give way!” being so overcome with passion, outrage and loathing.

The usual suspects were in out in force so the thrust of the rhetoric was heavily weighted against Israel. Well, as that was the whole point of the debate I guess it was never going to be anything other than a self-indulgent hate fest, no doubt to the delight of the councillors and voters of Rotherham.

Caroline Lucas, Andrew Slaughter, Richard Burden, Jim Cunningham, Bob Stewart, Lisa Cameron, David Jones, Naseem Shah, Simon Danczuk, Diana R Johnson, that awful windbag Philippa Whitford, and various others I was less familiar with spoke with great passion about the awful things the Israelis do to Palestinian children in detention in a celebration of virtue signalling gawn mad.

 “the ill-treatment of children who come in contact with the military detention system appears to be widespread, systematic and institutionalized throughout the process, from the moment of arrest until the child’s prosecution and eventual conviction and sentencing”.

Putting the case for the defence were: Louise Ellman, Andrew Percy, John Howell, Guto Bebb, Ian Austin and perhaps a couple of others who tried to draw attention to Palestinian incitement and the vile racism within the Palestinian education system, but no-one was listening because, why should they?

Naseem Shah for one  wasn’t going to hear anything she didn’t like. She insisted that no-one had ever been killed by stone throwing, even though one particularly sad case was cited:

Ian Austin Labour, Dudley North

Last February, four-year-old Adele Biton died after being critically injured by youths in a stone-throwing incident. I am just as worried as my hon. Friend is about the detention of children, but she should not minimise the crimes and violence that are taking place on the other side as well

Naseem Shah Labour, Bradford West

I will finish by clearly making the point that the Israeli Government have not provided any evidence of any child causing a death, or contributing to a death, using a stone. There is no evidence of that.

I could make a sly comment about stone-throwing being an official method of ‘contributing to a death’ that is practiced  by followers of a certain religion, but I wouldn’t be so crass.

“The government must set up a “watchlist” of Israelis who have committed war crimes by detaining and interrogating Palestinian children, a Labour MP has claimed.Sarah Champion said the Israeli Defence Forces were guilty of "mass intimidation and collective punishment" of Palestinians in order to protect Israeli settlers in the West Bank.Leading a debate on the issue in Westminster Hall on Wednesday, the Rotherham MP called for a list of “all known war crime suspects” who attempt to enter Britain.”

Incidentally Sarah Champion is another MP who has been seduced by CAABU, is utterly beholden to her Muslim constituents and is a supporter of the Labour Leader, so what could anyone expect? (other than a small baying mob that wants the government to ‘get a little list’ of pestilential nuisances that never would be missed’.)

The BBC featured Ms Champion heavily in the unusual and interesting documentary about the House of Commons, and as we commented at the time, in that series she came across as likeable and enterprising. 

However, she has been heavily criticised for dodging responsibility for the Rotherham abuse scandal and blaming everyone else in a parodic ‘who, me?’ fashion, while at the same time claiming to be energetically ‘championing’ the cause of the unfortunate victims. 

Championing has taken on a whole new meaning.
Update:

I’ve just noticed that Andrew Percy MP has written about this here, (How not to help Palestinian children) and as a matter of interest, this ( Fatah praises and encourages “heroic” murderers of Israelis) just popped into my inbox, and so did this. (Palestinian Authority, Hamas, Responsible for Torture)

I rest my case.

Gaza 'debate'

When someone mentioned one of Gerald Kaufman’s unhinged remarks the other day I failed to realise that he had made them during a parliamentary debate on Gaza, which took place on 8th July in Westminster Hall.

It was aired again on the parliament channel this morning, where I happened to see it.

The most striking thing by far was the poverty of oratorical competence. It was staggeringly bad.

You can see it on the iPlayer.

The Gaza debate was brought to us by Holly Lynch, Lab. It was supposed to be about the UN report into the 2014 Gaza conflict, but it strayed into other areas - ‘settlements’ and occupations for example.

This was Holly Lynch’s first parliamentary performance. She did very well. She came across like a sixth former who’d been revising hard in the BBC’s educational library of Middle East history and politics. 

You’ll really have to watch the whole thing to get the full picture of the level of this debate.

Firstly, look at the people who Holly Lynch went to for advice, or as she put it “help shape some of the arguments I am about to make":

“I also thank a number of campaign groups, non-governmental organisations and think-tanks that have met me this week to help shape some of the arguments I am about to make: Labour Friends of Palestine; Palestine Briefing; Yesh Din; Medical Aid for Palestinians; the Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Network; Forward Thinking; Pierre Krähenbühl, the commissioner-general of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency; and Ray Dolphin from the UN Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs.”

A finer group of pro-Palestine propagandists one couldn’t hope to consult.

Ms Lynch told us that Gaza was a densely populated open prison “and they have nowhere to go”. 

“Palestinian refugees are facing their most severe situation since 1948. They have had 50 years of occupation, nine years of a blockade in Gaza and now five years of conflict in Syria. When you look at all of that, how much more can they absorb?”

I don’t know if Holly Lynch even knows what happened “50 years ago” or what led to the occupation, or even the blockade. 

“Although the report finds that both the Israel defence forces and armed Palestinian groups failed to distinguish adequately between civilians and combatants during last year’s conflict, the scale of the arsenal available to the IDF makes their failure particularly devastating.”

Does she know which particular group did seriously fail to distinguish between civilians and combatants? Hamas and the UN made demonstrably inflated claims of civilian casualties. Evidence clearly shows that many of the ‘civilians’ in the figures supplied were Hamas fighters. The definition of ‘children’ was not clarified. Were teenagers classified as children?  If the international community refuses to acknowledge that Hamas uses a deliberate strategy of sacrificing their own children to cause the IDF a ‘damned if they do, damned if they don’t’ dilemma, (which Hamas leaders openly boast about) then there can never be a fair debate.

Holly Lynch’s speech was interminably long and perpetually wrong.

Attacking Israel:

In general, most of the arguments (predominantly anti-Israel)  hinged on the numbers of dead. It seemed that the main argument was that because so many Gazans died and too few Israelis, “we” should prevent Israel from acquiring arms.

As the emphasis was on the unfairness of what they saw as “disproportionality’ it was ironic that the debate itself suffered badly from a similar injustice. The debate was attended by interested parties, namely the same old, same old group of Labour and Muslim MPs, and the same old, considerably fewer, serial supporters of Israel.

Many of the facts, reiterated again and again, were dubious or partial. The figures quoted were straight out of the UN by way of Hamas. Even the three or four speakers that tried to put the case for Israel seemed resigned to being outnumbered. They appeared inadequately briefed, and not very on the ball.

The most worrying aspect of the whole affair was the poor standard of discussion. I will single out, (apart from Gerald Kaufman, whose tirade of hatred for Israel, frankly, made him appear technically certifiable) one or two excruciatingly poor speakers.  Notably, the new MP for Bradford Naseem (Naz) Shah, who had recently squandered her entire maiden speech by taking highly personal pot shots at her predecessor in retribution for his nasty, equally personal campaigning strategy; all quite unnecessary, simply because she was standing there instead of him.

 Ms Shah gave a terrible speech, but even that was not as bad as Imran Hussain (Or was that Khaled Mahmood, the name that came up on the video - a racist error?) whose cliche-ridden content vied with his cartoon-like delivery in the nil points league. (The name has been corrected in the transcript) 

Others who stumbled and stuttered through litanies of Israel-bashing rhetoric were Grahame Morris, Debbie Abrahams, Stephen Kinnock, Andrew Slaughter and Richard Burden.

God help us that these people have political power. 

Defending Israel were:

Bob Blackman, who probably made the best of the time allotted.

Matthew Offord pointed out that the UN was made up of ‘critics of Israel’

Louise Ellman mentioned Col Richard Kemp, but no-one takes much notice of his testimony since he’s become known for speaking up for Israel; she did mention the terror tunnels.

Jim Shannon DUP spoke up for Israel. He spoke so fast, and with such a strong NI accent I found it hard to understand his speech without looking at the transcript.

Deemed the most impressive speaker by many, was Philippa Whitford, SNP, Scotland’s answer to Dr. Mads Gilbert.  She was given extra time to deliver her first-hand experiences of working in Gaza.

“Hamas is said to have seized power” she stated. “but Hamas was elected! ”

“What do we expect? People in Gaza are trapped in a large open-air prison. We talk about the warnings that people got from the IDF, either from leaflets or roof knocks. I am still in touch with people in Gaza through the wonders of Facebook. The gaps to get out were far too short, and people fed back to me that they had no idea where to go because schools and vulnerable buildings had been bombed. They stayed put because they thought that going out on the street was probably dangerous.The place is intensely populated. Almost half of it was being saturation-bombed. Where were they meant to get to following a five-minute warning? They had nowhere to go. If we look at the maps in the report, Shejaiya, which is at the east end of Gaza city, where I lived, was almost carpet-bombed. There is no way that those people could have got anywhere”“People in Israel want normalised lives, but they’ll never get that while they’re living next to the largest open prison....”

She may have expressed her feelings more eloquently than most, but she had come to the most illogical conclusions. One might have expected better from someone of her professional status.

The Transcript doesn’t do justice to the sheer incoherence of the speakers. It’s been cleaned up, so you have to look at the video to get the full effect. 

Be afraid. Be very afraid.