March 23
2007
Warped analysis a go-go
» Posted on March 23, 2007 08:44 AM » Category: Anti-semitismBBCBigotryMiddle East

Melanie Phillips has a superb post, wrapping up two examples of what passes today for BBC analysis (by Ed Stourton and - him again - Jeremy Bowen) and a vile piece in yesterday's Guardian by Geoffrey Wheatcroft:


Stourton assumed that Israel’s attempt to defend itself against that aggression was illegitimate — and that no reasonable person could disagree. He asked the former US ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, why the Americans and the British had not supported the international calls for an immediate cease-fire.

...ES: Your former UN colleague the Syrian ambassador said to us that America was deliberately frustrating diplomatic attempts during those last two weeks of July precisely so Israel could have its head. From what you have just said, that’s a fair analysis of what was happening.

JB: I was damn proud of what we did.

Bolton was reacting to this line of questioning just as any normal person with a sense of justice would react. Faced with the proposition that a country had finally attempted to defend itself against an enemy which had constantly waged war against it, and that it did so by trying to destroy that enemy, he asked: ‘What was wrong with that?’ And of course, to a normal person there’s not only nothing wrong with it but it is the right and moral thing to do, to protect one’s country against further attack by attempting to destroy the enemy.

But in the twisted world of BBC values, it appears, Israel has no right to defend itself. Because when Stourton says the US and UK refused to call for a ceasefire, that’s not quite correct. They actually called upon Hezbollah from the start to stop its aggression. What Stourton — and the UK media and Labour party — found so unacceptable was that Bush and Blair didn’t insist that Israel should stop defending itself. In other words, that they did not insist that Israel surrender. And surrender, what’s more, to an army of Iran which has declared not only its intention to wipe Israel off the map but also to destroy the west and conquer the Arab world too.

Which is why Stourton goes on to report — in apparent amazement — that the Arab world was secretly hoping that Israel would indeed crush Hezbollah. Because the Arab world has every interest in Iran being defeated —as does the west, as do Bush and Blair and as do all sane and sentient people. That’s why it was in everyone’s interests for Israel to be allowed to defend itself by destroying its Iranian enemy before that enemy destroyed it. That’s why the US and the Arab world were so put out when Israel failed to destroy it.

But astoundingly, the BBC and the British left and a considerable proportion of the rest of Britain thinks the real problem was not Iranian aggression but that Israel might actually have defeated the army of Iran. They find it simply unconscionable that Israel was not required to surrender. According to Stourton, it is apparently a scandal that the US supported Israel in its self-defence; indeed, he represents this as some kind of sinister conspiracy that he has now unearthed through his amazing journalistic acumen. Democratic allies supporting each other in the great fight against fascism! What an outrage!

As for Wheatcroft's rant: let's just say it trots out pretty much every classic antisemitic theme going. As Melanie puts it:

Wheatcroft’s final charge, that British foreign policy is based on the interest of ‘another country’ —by which he presumably meant Israel — is simply contemptible. Once again, it is astonishing that this kind of sub-Protocols of the Elders of Zion racial libel about the Jews being a sinister conspiracy to subvert the foreign policy of Britain against the national interest is published in a mainstream British newspaper.

Indeed, it more or less proves my point in my Telegpraph piece below, prompting comments such as this on the Guardian site:


Jews in the UK are not normal people, they are Anglo-Jewish, and their loyalty to the UK is in question. No matter how many generations or centuries they have been in England, they are still outsiders.

Do read Melanie's full piece.


MessageSpace
Comments

"by which he presumably meant Israel"

I thought he meant America. But then Melanie Phillips is such a demented witch that she probably never even read that far. Perhaps someone could explain what is so offensive about a British foreign policy that took care of British interests only.

Stated by: Ted on March 23, 2007 10:33 AM

And Ted, it seems you didn't read to the bottom either.

"Jews in the UK are not normal people, they are Anglo-Jewish, and their loyalty to the UK is in question. No matter how many generations or centuries they have been in England, they are still outsiders."

Do you not consider that to be a profoundly worrying statement? this is the kind of thing that is common currency in the Grauniad.

Stated by: The Pedant-General on March 23, 2007 11:10 AM

Phillips is just as biased/bigoted as Wheatcroft; she has been a mere caricature for several years now. Though not wearing her learning lightly, her opinions are completely one-sided, and in places fly in the face of decency. But in saying so I am undoubtedly being a jew-hater or somesuch! At least I'm sure that's how Melanie would see it.

In resorting to the already-tired 'urban myth' of Ahmadinejad issued a rallying cry to ethnically cleanse Israel (as she seems to do every time she writes a column or appears on the radio), Phillips undermines her entire case in a fashion akin to David Cameron's B/S in Davos. The New York Times and BBC have both acknowledged this was a hurried mistranslation; but the soundbite is just too tempting isn't it? Furthermore in referring to the prospect of a ceasefire as 'Israeli surrender' she sounds bizarrely like an Arab propagandist (if there is such a word).

Stated by: Delius on March 23, 2007 12:46 PM

Iran was the threat? And there's me thinking it was Lebanon that Israel was bombing. (Warning Anti-Semitic Alert Ahead - The word Israel is about to be used)... But then I don't suppose it matters in which country Israel fights its wars, does it?

The Pedant_General: And Ted, it seems you didn't read to the bottom either.

You should try being a little more 'pedantic'. That quote was not from Wheatcroft but from a commenter. Wheatcroft has as much responsibility for that comment as Pollard has for this one.

Stated by: MrP on March 23, 2007 12:49 PM

Oh, Delius, yeah. And we all know how impartial and how fond of Jews and Israel the Bleedin' Biased Creeperation and the New Jerk Dimes (now on its way to liquidation) are. So they realize that they have made some real trouble for their poster boy for World Revolution. So they withdraw their "hurried mistranslation" of threats of mass destruction by a man who is working his serfs double time to build an atom bomb and intercontinental delivery systems. So pigs fly. You ascribe every bad motivation to Melanie Phillips and every honest one to the proven liars of the BBC and NJD. Tell me, did you weep when A fa rat died of AIDS?

Mr.P: anyone with any knowledge of the facts would know that Hezbollah, which Israel was bombing, had withdrawn a large part of southern Lebanon from the control of its national government and turned it into an Iranian dependency. But then I would not expect an Israel-bashing moron such as yourself to take such complicated matters into consideration - they would make your poor brain hurt.

Stated by: Paolo on March 24, 2007 10:19 AM

...Because the Arab world has every interest in Iran being defeated...

Being surrounded by Muslims, this statement is indeed true. The general opinion on the ground is that the leader is a madman.

Stated by: James on March 24, 2007 3:44 PM
Post a comment

    


    •