From our own correspondent’s Nick Danziger tells us that the Afghani people are the most wonderful people he knows. It’s women who continue to suffer the worst of the conflict. Outsiders make the same mistakes as most Afghan men, they don’t listen to women. Not a single one wants the Western forces to leave. “As the West rushes to exit the quagmire, they deserve continued support.” Consider today’s demo in Trafalgar Square. It’s a ‘an Anti-War Mass Assembly’ demanding the withdrawal of British troops from Afghanistan. George Galloway, Lauren Booth, Julian Assange, Seumas Milne, Moazzam Begg, Yvonne Ridley, Salma Yaqoob are some of the names who pledged to attend. Harry’s Place has posted an article by Terry Glavin who is dismayed that Peter Tatchell has also “lent his good name” to the cause. Peter Tatchell the crazy mixed-up gay activist who stood with the homophobic Muslims ina recent demo against the EDL. However, after a heated exchange of emails, it seems Tatchell was persuaded to modify his anti-war stance. He has issued a revised statement: There’s a fascinating thread on Harry’s Place about the left wing’s ever increasing association with Israel-bashing and Jew hatred. Mentioning it here, on what is supposedly a right-wing blog - though some dispute this - could be seen as schadenfreude, where one party delights in another’s misfortune. In this case, the left’s misfortune is allowing their own self-criticism to be snatched, nay, cherry picked, by the so-called right, (me) and used as evidence against them. We all hate it when it happens to us; but this is not intended to be that. I don’t want to criticise the left per se, I want to discuss the massive cognitive dissonance between the left’s self-asserted, self-proclaimed self-identification with the moral high ground, and their exponentially growing alliance with overt antisemitism. We all know Harry’s Place is a left wing blog, and a pro Israel blog, and when an irresistible force meets an immovable object it forces itself into some extremely uncomfortable contortions. The article by Habibi cites Ed Miliband’s praise for overtly antisemitic MPs and campaigners for organisations such as the Palestinian Solidarity Campaign and the friends of Al Aqsa. For example Robert Lambert, Andy Slaughter and Martin Linton. Esteemed Harry’s Place blogger Lucy Lips contrasts this with the treatment of the few Tories who are found to be supporters of the EDL. The nasty party doesn’t praise them at all. Just the opposite, zero tolerance; it dismisses them with no further ado. As the BBC is known to be of the left, and is similarly becoming ever more openly antisemitic, this trend desperately needs to be examined in public, openly and often. Especially as the current financial situation has been compared by BBC pundits with that of the 1930s. The similarities between the BBC and the left’s current default antisemitism and that of the 1930s should also be borne in mind. This Harry’s Place article is a sincere criticism of the Labour party’s increasingly open racism, not a criticism of Labour party’s fundamental philosophy. It’s worth reading the comments to see that some Labour supporters are as baffled by it as I am. The BBC's contrasting coverage of the party conferences seems to have been at its sharpest with 'Today'. Here's why I think that's the case (at somewhat exhausting length!), concentrating on the Labour Party conference in Liverpool and the Conservative Party conference in Manchester: 2 Arabs arrested for the double murder of the Palmers. Israel arrests Palestinian suspects in settler deaths. Compare these two headlines for a minute. Did you learn English grammar? If so, draw on the clause analysis that you might have come across once upon a time. I never did, so forgive me if I’ve got it wrong, but in headline number one, I’d say: "2 Arabs arrested " is the focus of the sentence, while "the Palmers" are subordinate and "double murder" is the nitty gritty. In other words the story is about an arrest. In number two, "Israel" is now the subject, "Palestinian suspects" are the object, and "settler deaths" are a mysterious coincidental contemporaneous occurrence. The story has turned into a slightly different one, which has a vaguely critical inference regarding Israel. Okay, I’m not a language expert, but although they say roughly the same thing, each headline imparts a very different message. I hope you’ll see that the second headline is the BBC’s. “Israel arrests”, is a somewhat aggressive opening gambit, phrased in the active form. “Palestinian suspects” sheds doubt on their guilt, while “insettler” a dehumanising and intentionally denigrating term for the victims, and “deaths” - passive, downplaying the act of murder. Headline number one is a straightforward presentation of the facts. 2 Arabs arrested for the double murder of the Palmers is what happened. Elder of Ziyon includes the names of the victims, tells us where and when things happened and puts in enough detail to inform the reader. He tells us the facts and only indulges in one emotive but apposite comment at the end: “Indeed, no Palestinian Arab official has condemned the murders.” On the other hand, I’m afraid the BBC continues their agenda-fuelled theme throughout. The act which caused the victims’ deaths is described in a passive form “the car crashed”. They omitted to mention that the stone was hurled from a moving car, or that the police are looking into more possible stone-throwing offences by the same two. Early in the BBC’s report they bring in another story; so predictable, yet so unnecessary. You knew it, it's the one about the mosque. An arson attack on a building is obviously regarded by the BBC as comparable to the murder of Asher and Yonatan Palmer. Strongly emphasised is: “the words "revenge", "price tag" and "Palmer"[....]written in Hebrew on the mosque walls”, and where the report is light on the details of the Palmers’ murders, it provides the whys and wherefores of the Mosque attack, and brings in other “price tag” attacks for good measure. Also included, something that has become a permanent attachment to anything connected with Israel, “The settlements are illegal under international law,” So that’s why they must always refer to the victims as settlers, rather than human beings. And, it’s factually unreliable too. “though Israel disputes this.” They would! “Their presence is a major obstacle to peace talks as the Palestinians insist Israel freeze settlement building before renewing negotiations.” This dodgy factoid has also crept in for no discernible reason, other than that it has become de rigueur. But hang on. What are they on about? They might as well come right out and admit that the Palestinians’ rejectionism is a major obstacle to peace, the only obstacle in fact, talks or no talks. If the Palestinians insisted that the world’s a balloon before renewing negotiations, it wouldn’t make one jot of difference. Negotiations no longer apply. There’s been a unilateral bid for statehood, remember, something which, should it succeed, would override the mythical, let’s-pretend negotiations. The Oslo Discords, the peace process, the talks, the table, the preconditions - all overridden and tossed into the dustbin of a peace process that the Palestinians never wanted in the first place, no matter how much the BBC and the international community disputes this. 
Baffling Alliance 2
>> SATURDAY, OCTOBER 08, 2011
”The left and anti-war movement is gambling with the lives of Afghan women, democrats and leftists when it calls for the immediate withdrawal of all UK and NATO troops. This demand is rejected by most Afghans and could result in mass slaughter by the Taliban. It risks capitulation to a clerical fascist movement that threatens the human rights of the Afghan people,”
“There needs to be a more sophisticated anti-war alternative to the Nato strategy. I haven’t got the answers but I know we should not abandon the Afghan people to a Taliban bloodfest. Anti-imperialism cannot be allowed to trump human rights.”
“The Stop The War Coalition said up to 5,000 people joined musicians, actors, film-makers and MPs at the Anti-war Mass Assembly in Trafalgar Square.”
Baffling Alliance
'Today' - A Tale of Two Cities
Headline Story
>> FRIDAY, OCTOBER 07, 2011
Saturday, 8 October 2011
BBC news 24 reported this demo uncritically, or should we call it 'with studious impartiality’, in the context-free manner to which we’ve become accustomed.
On the website, though, they’re positively enthusiastic. Yippee. Sounds like a proper knees up. But they did say the organisers would find the attendance disappointing. There were only ‘about a thousand’ there. Too bad.
Setting the agenda The introductions to each edition of the programme were revealing:
The Labour conference editions Monday 26/9: Opened with James Naughtie saying "The shadow chancellor Ed Balls will commit Labour to new spending rules in an attempt to bolster the party's economic credentials.
We'll be talking to Mr Balls live in Liverpool." Tuesday 27/9: Opened with James Naughtie saying "Ed Miliband is going to tell the Labour Party at its conference that it's time to reward people who contribute to society and stop the get-rich-quick culture".
Wednesday 28/9: James Naughtie says "I'll be talking to Ed Miliband about his break with the Blair/Brown years, producers and predators and the role of the state in our lives."
The Conservative conference editions Monday 3/10: Begins with Sarah Montague saying, "Plans to extend the freeze on council tax in England are to be announced by the chancellor.
We'll be speaking to George Osborne later in the programme and we'll be asking whether Europe could yet again divide the Tories."
Tuesday 4/10: After headlines about Amanda Knox, "senior doctors in England are warning that the government's overhaul of the NHS in England will cause irreparable harm to patients' services" and "how much control do we have over the world's financial markets and how much of it is done by computers and fear?", Sarah Montague says, "here at the Conservative Party conference, we'll be asking whether the Conservatives hate the police and at ten past eight I'll be speaking to the prime minister David Cameron." Wednesday 5/10: Begins with Sarah Montague saying, "David Cameron will close the Conservative Party conference with a call for people to pay off their credit card debts. Also this morning we'll be speaking to the foreign secretary William Hague about how Britain should react to the Eurozone crisis and asking whether the North can ever be persuaded to vote Tory."
So, nothing negative for the Labour Party in any of those James Naughtie introductions but a deeply negative question posed in every one of Sarah Montague's introductions.
Suggestive of bias surely?
Posts
