Jihad Watch Board Vice President Hugh Fitzgerald discusses the dhimmi broadcasting of the BBC:
The BBC has many reporters on the Middle East, and sometimes in the Middle East, who slavishly follow the Arab Muslim line. A few of them seem to have inherited their views, the way in which Kim Philby inheriteed his alienation from the West from his father St. John Philby, the senior Philby becoming a Muslim and Saudi today, the junior Philby becoming a Soviet spy. One of those to-the-manner-born BBC correspendents bears the the last name "Seale"; the other one bears the last name "Hawley." I have long wondered if the first is the daughter of the notorious Patrick Seale, and if the second, Caroline Hawley, now in Jerusalem (taking the place of weepy Barbara Plett) is by any chance the daughter of Donald Hawley, who has his own story with the Arabs. If so, my my.It has long been bruited about that Patrick Seale, the British writer and Middle East “expert,” has had very close ties with the regime of Hafez al-Assad, whose biographer he was. These close ties have been intimated by those who have spent long periods in the Middle East, and who have for quite some time followed Seale's louche activities. If this is true, then in this respect he is no different from a number of Western diplomats, especially in Saudi Arabia, nor from George Galloway, the supposed recipient of Saddam Hussein's favors, nor from Robert Fisk, whose assorted ties to various Arab regimes and causes are too long and boring to list. This is all part of the Islamintern International -- a phrase that I think ought usefully to be employed, based as it is on the model of the Comintern of memory.
Of course Patrick Seale would like us to give the Muslims, or rather the Muslim Arabs, whatever they want. Yet there is not the slightest evidence that this will do anything except feed Muslim triumphalism. In the case of throwing Israel to the wolves, it will also remove -- if the Israelis make still further concessions -- the excuse of darura, necessity, which allows some Arab regimes to explain to their own people why, for now, they cannot directly attack Israel. Further reduced in size, Israel would become a much more inviting and plausible target. Most Arab countries would simply have to attack. And then, of course, those 200 nuclear weapons Israel has would most likely, in the end, have to be used.Whether or not he has a child employed there, Seale’s views get ample airtime on the BBC. The BBC, you will recall, has as its World Affairs Editor a certain John Simpson. Simpson is a key figure in the Islamintern -- along with Edward Mortimer, Annan's chief speechwriter, and Mona Rishmawi, the Palestinian Arab behind Mary Robinson. Simpson has contributed an enthusiastic introduction to one of those books about the U.S.-Israel conspiracy to "hush up" the attack on the U.S.S. Liberty -- the kind of thing that has become the reason for living for so many of the wildest antisemites. Ca dit longue, John Simpson's involvement in this favorite treatment of the American antisemites' favorite topic makes him just the man to run the BBC World Services.
So the next time you have to endure the sneers and snarls directed at Israel from chirpy little Judy Swallow (surely she has the most unpleasant female voice on all of radio), Robin Lustig (and he has the winner in the male voice category), et al (including Barbara Plett, the one who wept on air for the dying Arafat, making her obvious sympathies -- obvious, has been moved to Afghanistan, still in her beloved and colorful Muslim world, but at least out of Israel) -- do make sure to direct some of your ire at John Simpson, No. 3 at the BBC. There has to be a cleaning up of the BBC, and it cannot be done by the Foreign Office. Let us do everything we can to try to make sure that Judy Swallow, nasty Lyse Doucet, Robin Lustig, those Muslims called in to represent Islam, such as would-be suicide-bomber Aziz Tamimi, indeed, so very many at the BBC World Service -- and most of all, of course, Simpson himself, are ultimately let go. How about a nice Committee of Quangos, headed by Vladimir Bukovsky, who lives in Cambridge, and who knows something about totalitarian thought-control, and has been enraged by the BBC's bias for years -- yes, Bukovsky is the man. Aided, perhaps, by others who have the same kind of knowledge of how propaganda works -- Pavel Kohout in Prague comes to mind, and the Polish historian Geremek, and the current foreign minister of Bulgaria (I forget his name). Yes, they will do very nicely.
Attention could profitably be focused on the funneling of American taxpayers' money to NPR, which in turn pays the BBC to broadcast its propaganda (The Guardian in radio-wave form). We do not need to pay for our own Eurabian brainwashing, and should refuse to continue. NPR stations should be discouraged -- in the only way that gets their attention, by limiting their ability to raise funds successfully -- from continuing to inflict the biased BBC, now a stalking-horse for Eurabian views, into American homes. Surely the Senate will want to cease all indirect support for the BBC, with its incredible coverage not only of the Arab Jihad against Israel, but of American, and British, actions in Iraq. Goodbye, BBC. If after the 6,000 jobs are gone, we find that the worst offenders are looking for work, we will reconsider -- that is the attitude the Senate should take.
It is not true that the BBC offers all sorts of news that one could not otherwise get, nor that the presentation of what is given is impressively thorough. Ask yourself only this question: in 2001 the Western world, the world of Infidels, was attacked by a group of Muslims acting logically, and boldly, upon attitudes and tenets of Islam. If the BBC is so wonderful, and devoid of the need for commercial interruptions, it should have been wonderful enough to cover the texts and teachings of Islam, and to do so with such thoroughness that everyone and his brother would know what the Qur'an is, and what the doctrine of abrogation is, and what the Hadith are, and why Khomeini, as virtually his first act, lowered the marriageable age of girls to nine. And we should know enough about Islam, and the BBC interviewers should know everything, so that when they are discussing, say, the Danish cartoons, and a Muslim apologist blandly assures them that Muhammad himself never punished critics, so that Muslim reaction is merely a matter of hurt feelings, the interviewer will no longer silently accept such nonsense, but be able, by referring to Asma bint Marwan and Abu Afak, to offer a sharp rebuttal. Or is the BBC not in the business of rebutting, but rather of collaborating with, apologists for Islam? Does the BBC require those covering anything to do with Islam to learn about it, in detail, and not from apologists? And when do you think, in all the tens of thousands of hours of coverage at the BBC of the Lesser Jihad against Israel, that has no end because no Infidel sovereign state can be permitted on land once possessed by Muslims, presented steadily on the BBC as a matter of "the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people opposed to occupation of occupied Arab land by Israeli occupiers." (There, does the BBC make itself clear?), you the listeners will ever the term "dhimmi" discussed? Will the name "Bat Ye'or" ever be mentioned? Will the murders of Hindus in Bangladesh or Christians in the southern Sudan ever be discussed as being related to the doctrines of Islam, or will that never happen? Will Islam as a vehicle for Arab supremacist ideology ever come up? When was the last time the BBC covered the Berber riots in the Kabyle, or anything to do with Berber resentment of Arab oppression? When has the BBC ever hinted at the general Arab support for (not even mere indifference to) the Arab Muslim massacre of non-Arab, black African Muslims in Darfur? When will the entire matter of whether or not Muslims within Europe can offerreal, as opposed to feigned, and permanent, as opposed to temporary, loyalty to any Infidel nation-state become the subject of inquiry, discussion, debate -- or will this issue, on which the destiny of Europe may depend, never be raised at the BBC.
The BBC has done none of this. It is more superficial, more inaccurate, less informative, in its coverage of Islam than many a supposedly "right-wing" American commercial station so easy to dismiss, because nothing critical of Islam appears on the BBC World Service. Who, after all, works at the BBC? There are the ever-expanding number of Arabs and Muslims, as the Arab-lnaguage services expand and Arabs replace those who are discharged as so many other language-services are closed down. How many of those Arabic-language speakers are Copts, or Maronites, who might be more likely to tell some unpleasant home truths about Islam, rather than continue to protect it in every way, or how many of those Arabic-language speakers might have been chosen from Berbers or Kurds who know Arabic? And on the regular staff, whom do you think the likes of John Simpson would favor? What colleagues would Judy Swallow, Robin Lustig, Barbara Plett, Lyse Doucet, welcome into their Guardian-parroting ranks?
Occupied Europe, the Europe in which indigenous Infidels are fearful of those bearers of the belief-system of Islam who have come to settle among them, and who do not hestitate to oppose the laws, customs, manners, understandings, of the locals, and whose presence has caused the indigenous Infidels to lead lives far more unsettled and unpleasant and expensive and physically dangerous, than they might otherwise be, from Malmo to Marseilles, from Madrid to Mannheim, is ill-served by the present BBC. For its policies and personnel have created a situation where, in a sense, we know have Lord Haw-Haw safely ensconced in Bush House, rather than having to broadcast to his listeners from Berlin.As all those who have to listen to it and still have their wits about them, know, the BBC beggars the imagination in its arrogance, its certainty, its bias. At times, it is simply an FM version of Robert Fisk. This we need not permanently endure.
A nasty little attempt by Simpson at denigrating Pim Fortuyn here.
Islamintern International, gotta love it!
Caroline Hawley -- the new Jerusalem Bureau Chief -- is the perfect replacement for the BBC's previous Arabist ME correspondent Orla Guerin. Here is how The Guardian describes Hawley:
"The daughter of a senior diplomat, Hawley was born in Nigeria in 1967. She lived in Oman as a child and ‘romantic memories of camels in deserts and starry nights’ [Hawley’s words] inspired her to study Arabic and Islamic studies at Oxford University."
Enough to make you lose your breakfast.
As for Simpson, a responsible news outfit would have immediately fired him for his rank justification of the French riots in November of last year. Note this breathtaking bit of apologetic agitation:
"Thanks to the Revolution, violence even has a kind of virtue which it simply does not possess in a country like Britain. When government becomes incapable of change, the crowds in the streets have to do the changing for themselves."
With sorry Arabists like Hawley and Simpson leading the charge, the BBC has clearly demonstrated that it is on the wrong side of history. What a sad epitaph for what was once the greatest and most respected media organisation in the world.
This is from an old Charles Moore piece:
How about a nice Committee of Quangos
Or even a Quango of Quangos. An Uberquango.
Isn't there a song: "Cuango cuango cuango"?
Yes, the beeb is totally pro-Islam. Orla Goebbels also deserves a mention.
I heard a classic Simpsonism on 'the Reunion' the other day. Discussing the first Gulf War Simpson admitted that his first thought on hearing that Saddam had landed scud missiles in Israel was 'Oh My God - Israel will nuke Iraq'. No sign of any concern for the underdog there - no worries about Israeli casualities - no heed of the clear agreement Israel came to with America not to attack Iraq. No - none of that. Straight into fantasies about irresponsible, brutal Jews hitting the nuclear button. And no doubt most of the staff at the BBC would be thinking it was an utterly reasonable reaction.
More on anti-Israel bias at the BBC here.
Simpson refers to Saddam as "the saint of the poor and the dispossessed".
Then there's the BBC's Barbara Plett who had tears for the organizer-of-murder and embezzler Yasser Arafat:
http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=18370
The licence fee should be discontinued and the corporation broken up.
Strangely enough the BBC upheld a complaint against Barbara Plett and her weeping fit.
Useful link Interested - thanks. How about the latest pro Pal stunt - holding 'inquests' in London on the deaths of James Miller and Tom Hurndall (the 'human shield' from the ISM). Never mind that the Israelis sentenced an IDF soldier (an arab Israeli as it happens) to 8 years in prison on manslaughter charges, Hurndall's dad was given his chance on the Today prog. to pour out some vitriol about Israelis 'killing with impunity'. John Humphrys, the Great Interrupter, was strangely silent as Mr Hurndall delivered this outright propaganda. No mention of course of all the dead Israelis killed by their homicidal Palistinian friends.
Just in case there are people here who are not aware of it, "Bush House" is the name of the building BBC has its main offices in.
The building's name has no connection to the US presidential family. However, the name might be associated with this original British concept.
Mister Simpson, will you stand up, please.
Dear Hugh,
The present Bulgarian foreign minister is Mr. Ivaylo Kalfin. You probably had in mind the previous one, Mr. Solomon Passy who is now the Chair of the Parliamentary Committee on Foreign Affairs.
Ya vam ochen' blagodaren. I hope both of them stay away from umbrellas.
Jinnee, I was confused this morning when I saw a story on Sky TV [bbc junior] about an "inquest" that declared Israel guilty of "illegally" killing Hurndall, etc. They didn't say who conducted the inquest, whether it was official or a propaganda gimmick, by whose authority [since the shooting took place in Gaza], under whose law. First of all, Hurndall went to Gaza, as far as I know, after deciding not to stay in Baghdad as a "human shield." Secondly, Gaza was a war zone, de facto, if not de jure, and you and others here have pointed out that terrorists in Gaza were attacking Israeli civilians deliberately. Thirdly, when Hurndall was shot, shooting was going on around him between Israeli and local Arab forces. And he was aware of this, yet put himself in harm's way. The laws of war [and you can check the Hague and Geneva Conventions, etc] provide that the presence of a "protected person" [an unarmed person] in the vicinity of legitimate targets, such as armed combatants, does not foreclose attack on that area. Fourthly, how is a soldier 60 or 100 meters away supposed to know that Tom Hurndall was not a combatant, whether he was armed or not [and a combatant does not have to be armed]? Fifthly, Hurndall's sympathizers have claimed that he was out on the street merely trying to shoo children away from the shooting. What proof is there of this claim other than the words of the terrorist organizations and Hurndall's associates in the so-called Solidarity Movement? And if it were true, how can the soldiers be responsible for the welfare of someone who is going about in a place where shooting is going on? as I asked above. He seems to have been wearing a yellow vest at the time he was shot. What is that supposed to mean to the average soldier? How can they trust anyone on the street in such a situation, also because in the past the PLO/Hamas/Islamic Jihad side in the fighting has, for example, used ambulances on various occasions to smuggle weapons, explosives, bombs, terrorists, and even to serve as mobile bombs driven by suicide attackers?
Yojimbo, I have no doubt that Libya was involved in the Lockerbie bombing. However, it is my understanding that Syria was more involved than Libya, yet for political reasons, certain powers did not want to accuse Syria [under Hafiz Assad, at that time], so the guilt was focussed on Libya. Simpson of course often seems not only extremely biased, but sometimes less than sane.
Was Hurndall's real purpose to prevent Israeli soldiers from shooting at Fatah or Hamas terrorists?
Maybe he thought that by waving his self-righteousness in front of the Israeli soldiers, he could protect the objects of his solidarity, the Fatah or Hamas terrorists, something like waving garlic [or whatever] in front of a vampire in those old horror movies.
Eliyahu posted: Was Hurndall's real purpose to prevent Israeli soldiers from shooting at Fatah or Hamas terrorists?
Ofcourse it was. He was there as a human shield. Tragic though his death, that was what he was there to do i.e., get in the line of fire.
Guess you're right, DP, but that's not what I heard on Sky
Eliyahu:
Thank you. I didn't know, but I realize this is the way of things.
On Hurndall - the so-called Independent quotes him:
I don't mean to be blase about this guy's death, and the Israeli courts have dealt with that (which ought to give some people pause for thought but hasn't) but doesn't this passage give food for thought - and not the kind of thoughts the Independent wanted?
What was he doing, on the occasion recorded here, roaming around after curfew? There are reasons for curfews.
I don't believe that there was any Israeli military curfew imposed on the Arab population in Gaza by Israel. Of course, if someone came close to an Israeli settlement at night in a surreptitious manner, he might be shot at. But Israeli forces were NOT patrolling in the Arab cities and villages in Gaza in a regular fashion. Maybe Hurndall was simply reporting what he was told by his handlers, and really did not have much idea of what was going on [not speaking the language of course], except that he may heard the rockets shooting up, and the regular shooting of bullets which is so common in Arab areas, such as Iraq today.
I know a young woman who lived in Gaza who was living in the Gush Qatif area of Gaza until last summer when the Sharon-Olmert govt expelled her from her home. She is still traumatized by the event. Anyhow, I'll ask if she can confirm what Hurndll claimed.
Thanks. Wheels within wheels ...
Even as a sceptical reader one can be misled. I can understand Hurndall might have been told something that wasn't so.
I'm sorry to hear about the young woman.
FWIW, here's the link.
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/legal/article357010.ece