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.