Eretz Israel is our unforgettable historic homeland...The Jews who will it shall achieve their State...And whatever we attempt there for our own benefit will redound mightily and beneficially to the good of all mankind.(Theodor Herzl, DerJudenstaat, 1896)
We offer peace and amity to all the neighbouring states and their peoples, and invite them to cooperate with the independent Jewish nation for the common good of all. The State of Israel is ready to contribute its full share to the peaceful progress and development of the Middle East.(From Proclamation of the State of Israel, 5 Iyar 5708; 14 May 1948) With a liberal democratic political system operating under the rule of law, a flourishing market economy producing technological innovation to the benefit of the wider world, and a population as educated and cultured as anywhere in Europe or North America, Israel is a normal Western country with a right to be treated as such in the community of nations.... For the global jihad, Israel may be the first objective. But it will not be the last.(Friends of Israel Initiative)
Showing posts with label BBC and the Arab Uprisings (2011). Show all posts
Showing posts with label BBC and the Arab Uprisings (2011). Show all posts
Sometimes - just sometimes - a chink of light penetrates the curtain of denial that the BBC habitually drapes over any suggestion that all is not springlike about the Arab uprisings.
Sometimes - just sometimes - an Al Beeb reporter (though not usually "Middle East editor" Jeremy Bowen) does not stay true to type, but types the truth, by which I mean the situation as it is, and not how Al Beeb (which loves to conceal all sorts of awkward little facts, especially about Islamic extremism, that sit ill with the narrative if feeds the masses) would like the world to be.
Thus the BBC's Thomas Dinham, reporting from Cairo, tells us frankly of increasing antisemitism there, and adds:
'While walking in the street someone pushed me from behind with such force that I nearly fell over.
Turning around, I found myself surrounded by five men, one of whom tried to punch me in the face. I stopped the attack by pointing out how shameful it was for a Muslim to assault a guest in his country, especially during Ramadan.
Relieved that a seemingly random assault was over, I was appalled by the apology offered by one of my assailants. "Sorry," he said contritely, offering his hand, "we thought you were a Jew."
Shaking his head in disbelief on hearing the news, an Egyptian friend sympathised: "That's stupid, you are obviously not a Jew."
The chilling implication I was left with was that, had I been Jewish, the assault would have apparently been justified.'
Brought to you by the BBC College of Journalism (CoJo), and including a discussion of the influence of Iran, the Muslim Brotherhood, and the impact on Israel:
The BBC (you know by now how much I love Al Beeb, don’t you?!) has kept shtum about all sorts of developments in the Middle East that suggest that not all within the protest movement is sweetness and light.
On its execrably left-leaning CoJo (College of Journalism) website – which I advise all concerned about Al Beeb’s anti-Western, anti-Israel bias to keep an eye on regularly – it carries, for example, a piece by a suitably tame Israeli about the brutal attack on CBS reporter Lara Logan by a Muslim mob in Cairo, a piece which omits the rather salient fact that the mob yelled “Jew! Jew!” and focuses instead on the “ugly media reactions” in the West that display male chauvinism towards working women in conflict zones and Islamophobia.
Here’s a snippet:
‘Debbie Schlussel, the ultra-conservative columnist and commentator, claimed in her blog:
"Lara Logan was among the chief cheerleaders of this 'revolution' by animals. Now she knows what Islamic revolution is really all about."
She added:
"So sad, too bad, Lara. No-one told her to go there. She knew the risks. And she should have known what Islam is all about. Now she knows ... How fitting that Lara Logan was 'liberated' by Muslims in Liberation Square while she was gushing over the other part of the 'liberation'."
Nor will any hint of antisemitism among the protesters – as captured in the composite photos I've reproduced here – they were put together by Edgar Davidson and I took the liberty of copying them from recent posts on his admirable blog (http://www.edgar1981.blogspot.com/)
And, as I’ve said more than once, neither will any suggestion that the Muslim Brotherhood, is in fact (despite the blatherings of Middle East editor Jeremy Bowen and his acolytes) a dangerous Jihadist organisation.
All of which brings me to Professor Barry Rubin’s post on his blog entitled “Muslim Brotherhood's New Campaign: Seize Control of Egypt's Islamic Institutions”.
He writes:
‘MEMRI has pointed out the opening of a Muslim Brotherhood campaign to replace Egypt's current clerical hierarchy with its own people. If that happens...you can imagine.. Once Islamists are in place making the "official" decisions on what constitutes proper Islam, an Islamist state cannot be far away.
.... Knowing that control over Islam was vital to maintaining control of the country, the Egyptian regime (like nationalist regimes elsewhere) set out to build a systematic structure for doing so. The head of the al-Azhar Islamic university, the chief qadi, the clerics of different mosques, are government-appointed. Sermons are government-approved. A ministry in charge of awqaf (religious foundations) and religion supervises all of this and hands out the money. And the government also decides which clerics appear on television and radio, or even have their own programs.
Over the last decade or so, the "official" clerics have been radicalized, and they support terrorism against Israel. Yet there is still a huge gap between those who accepted the rule by Mubarak's regime and those who demand an Islamist regime. They hate the Brotherhood and the Brotherhood hates them.
Now, if all of these official clerics are declared to be corrupt instruments of the old regime and are thrown out of office, the Brotherhood will control "Islam" in Egypt. Equally important, they will control a vast amount of patronage and money. Every cleric will have to get along with them or be unemployed. They could authorize which mosques could open. They would control religious education.
If the Brotherhood is a participant in government, even as a junior member of a coalition, its highest priority will be the religious affairs ministry. To call this dangerous is an understatement.
So we should watch carefully this battle over who governs Islam in Egypt.
To save you a click, here is what Muhammad Zoghbi of the Brotherhood says:
"Al-Azhar was subjected to...the politicization of the positions of the sheikh of Al-Azhar and the mufti of Egypt, as well as the position of the minister of religious endowments. These positions must be filled through elections. By no means should these officials be appointed by the president....
Therefore I say to the 'sons' of Al-Azhar: Let us all join the campaign, led by Sheik Khaled Al-Gindi, until we liberate Al-Azhar, just like Egypt was liberated....The president of Egypt must be subordinate to Al-Azhar and respect it....
Therefore, I say to the sheikh of Al-Azhar...resign immediately.... The mufti and the minister of religious endowments should step down, leaving their positions to God-fearing imams...."
"God-fearing" imams means Muslim Brotherhood cadre. The president of Egypt "must be subordinate" to al-Azhar means an Islamist state. This strategy also suggests that the Brotherhood is recognizing that it will not choose Egypt's next president – who is more likely to be the nationalist Amr Moussa – so it must start building an independent base of support outside of the government's and president's control for its long march toward Islamism at a later date.'
Barry Rubin, in another post entitled “The Turkish Camouflage Model: Arab Radicals Learn How to Hide Your Islamism,” draws attention to a pertinent passage from Newsweek magazine (http://www.newsweek.com/2011/02/27/an-islamist-makeover.html)
“As revolutions across the Mideast bring religious parties within sight of real political power, Turkey’s Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan is becoming the region’s go-to man for Islamist leaders looking for a makeover.”
Adds the professor:
“In other words, be an Islamist but pretend you aren't. The fact that Erdogan is an ally of Iran, Syria, Hamas, and Hizballah is not a good sign for those who follow what might be better called the Turkish Camouflage-Your-Extremism Model.”
In exchange for its unique and privileged status as a licence-payer funded broadcaster – an anachronism from the 1930s that is decades past its use-by date – the BBC is obligated by the terms of its Charter (and its Producers’ Guidelines) to be impartial in its presentation of news. It is a requirement which this arrogant, bloated, incorrigibly left-leaning institution breaches with impunity again and again.
As the lawyers Trevor Asserson and Elisheva Mironi stated in an analysis of the BBC’s coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in 2001:
“Some breaches are minor and would not be worthy of note in isolation. Taken together, however ... even these subtler or more minor breaches reveal a clear and significant trend of bias. Some of the breaches are ... quite glaring. At times, by mere selection or omission of facts, the BBC report is misleading. At times, it appears to invent material to suit its own bias. “
Several further Asserson reports later, and the BBC remains as biased as ever. In 2009, following public complaints, the BBC Trust rapped Middle East editor Jeremy Bowen (pictured below, right, and again left) over the knuckles for several instances of bias, an action that merely left Bowen petulant and defiant.
And he had his champions. “You don’t have to search far on the web to find Zionist publications, lobby groups and bloggers all over the world using distorted versions of the report to justify their ill-founded prejudice that the BBC has a deep-seated and long-standing bias against the state of Israel,” inveiged the pro-Palestinian broadcaster Jonathan Dimbleby, scion of one of those familial dynasties the BBC (despite its disdain for the hereditary principle in monarchy and House of Lords) is not averse to creating, and author of a book on the PLO. “Conversely, millions of Palestinians, other Arabs and Muslims will by now have been confirmed in their – equally false – belief that the BBC is yet again running scared of Israeli propaganda.” (As satirical magazine Private Eye might add: “Shome mishtake shurely?”)
See http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2009/05/dimbleby-fearful-bbc-risks-losing-its-way/http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/may/13/jonathan-dimbleby-jeremy-bowen-bbc-middle-east
Dollars to doughnuts Bowen’s getting ready to uncork the bubbly now that former Hong Kong Governor and EU Commissioner Chris Patten (Lord Patten of Barnes) has been recommended by Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt to David Cameron as the person to fill the £110,000 p.a. post of Chairman of the BBC Trust. For barring an unforeseen hiccup, Patten will be a shoe-in.
He’s a terrible choice, given his own highly demonstrable track record of pro-Palestinian partisanship. Not only is he President of Medical Aid for Palestinians, no doubt a worthy cause in and of itself, but he has publicly excoriated Israel on several occasions, demanding, for example, that Israel opens talks with Hamas and declaring that Israel’s easing of the siege on Gaza is insufficient.
Here’s a video that gives a brief glimpse into his stance on the issue (the announcer mistakenly calls the Guardian by its old and no longer appropriate locational title, the Manchester Guardian, by the way):
An “analysis” on the BBC News website by Professor Fawaz Gerges, director of the Middle East Centre at the London School of Economics, entitled “Arab unrest: Winners and losers,” is so outrageously propagandistic that it should be formally protested by the Board of Deputies of British Jews and the Zionist Federation. In a passage sub-headed “Fortress Israel” it says:
“Regionally, Israel is the biggest loser. It has put all its eggs into the basket of Arab dictators and autocrats, like Egypt's deposed Hosni Mubarak. Israel fought tooth and nail to support Mr Mubarak, who played a key role in tightening the siege of Gaza and the noose around Hamas's neck.
Time and again, the Israeli political class has proven to be its own worst enemy. Israel lost Iran 40 years ago because it put all its eggs in the Shah's basket. It has just lost Turkey over the killing of nine activists on board a Gaza-bound Turkish aid ship.
And now Israel is likely to lose Egypt, a critical and pivotal neighbour whose Camp David peace agreement in the late 1970s consolidated Israel's superiority in the region and undermined the official Arab state system.
Regardless of what governments emerge out of the rubble of political authoritarianism in the Arab world, they will have assertive foreign policies that challenge Israel's hegemony and further colonisation of Palestinian lands.
Meanwhile, the leadership of the Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, has lost all credibility in the eyes of the people there. The leaked negotiation documents obtained by al-Jazeera - offering wide-ranging concessions to the Israeli side - were the final nail in the PA's coffin.
Resistance-based movements like Hamas and Hezbollah have gained more popularity at the expense of Abbas's Palestinian Authority; they will emerge as major winners of the social turmoil unless Israel takes concrete steps to sign a peace settlement and withdraw from occupied Arab territories.
So Israel has become a military fortress. The best way for Israel to address its security dilemma is to accept a two-state solution as suggested by the international community - including its long-time ally, the US.” [My emphasis]
This goes beyond political commentary into subjective prescription – by what it claims and what it omits it tells us as much about the writer’s prejudices as the Middle East situation that he is meant to be describing.
And notice, incidentally, how this BBC video report on Britain's relations, historically, with the Arab world implies the Arab nature of "Palestine" http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12616565
It is that piece I've quoted above, by Gerges, that might fittingly provide the first test of Patten’s mettle and show whether he can rise above his own pattern of prejudice against the Jewish State.
That is, if Anglo-Jewry’s infamously supine leadership (there are exceptions to the malaise) is willing to stir itself and rise to the challenge of confronting Al Beeb over the issue.
“The demonstrations have been largely peaceful – in Egypt, sometimes even good-natured,” declared BBC reporter Tim Whewell in a special edition of Newsnight last evening, focusing on the Arab uprisings.
And so there was nothing in the programme about the brutal and sustained sexual assault on CBS correspondent Lara Logan while her attackers yelled “Jew! Jew!”.
And there was nothing about the exhortations to Jihad made by the inherently antisemitic Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, who is shown in this video bellowing for his countrymen to liberate “Palestine”, while the listening masses in Tahrir Square roar their approval.
It’s all part and parcel of Al Beeb’s refusal to acknowledge the true nature and ambitions of the Muslim Brotherhood, and its dismissive attitude towards those who warn of them.
Assad Elepty, a Coptic Christian in Sydney who as well as being an activist in the cause of the Copts of Egypt is also a staunch supporter of Israel (he has campaigned tirelessly against the shameful decision of Marrickville Council to join the BDS brigade), is ever alert to manifestations of Islamism in Egypt, which has cost his co-religionists so dear (and continues to do so, a Coptic priest having been found murdered with 22 stab wounds just the other day).
Here’s his take on the Muslim Brotherhood's role in the Egyptian revolution:
'Contrary to the misleading and offensive rhetoric given in speeches by members of Sydney’s Muslim community,(during a rally held near the Lakemba Mosque on 31 January 20011), the fall of Mubarak was not as a result of western influence, or that “the US or Britain dropped their “Arab Puppet”.
(A shortened version is at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJnjIf17OBg )
The reality of the situation is that the Muslim Brotherhood have had a personal vendetta with Mubarak for 30 years. He kept them on a tight leash and came down on them with ruthless force in the lead up to the December 2010 election. They lost every seat in parliament (88), and over 1600 MB members and supporters were arrested and detained.
The revolution was a gift horse “that they never dreamed of”.
I commend Frontline for their report on “the behind scenes role played by the Muslim brotherhood to ensure the demise of Mubarak”
The revelations disclose members of the Muslim Brotherhood not only actively assisted in organising the revolution; they in fact knew it was coming, “it was the pay back”.
The senior leadership of the MB waited 3 days, before unleashing their well oiled machine and swung into action to ensure the revolution did not loose momentum.
(My question is “Was the Army aware of the pending revolution”?)
Let’s look at the actions of the army and not forget that on the day of the victory celebration, (1 week to the day after the fall of Mubarak)
The youth that organised the revolution played no role in this momentous occasion.
The Prayers, sermon and victory speech was made by the banned father figure of the Muslim Brotherhood Yusuf Qaradawi.
It was the Army that forced the hand of Mubarak and forced him to step down. Yes it was the army and not any western nation, “switching its allegiance in Egypt that brought down Hosni Mubarak”.
It was also the Army that escorted Qaradawi, guarded him and returned him to his home after the sermon and speech.
It was also the army that refused to appoint a civilian committee to re write the constitution and instead handpicked a 10 man panel to amend certain articles of the constitution exclusive of Article 2.
Egypt's Military Council, the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces, formed a panel charged with drafting modifications to Egypt's current (albeit suspended) constitution.
In forming this new panel, the Council dissolved another one that was formed in the last days of Mr. Mubarak's rule, which included ten renowned, and 'apolitical,' judges, academics and public personalities.
Instead of relying on those experts, the Council created a new, smaller panel that includes two Islamists. Not only is neither an expert person on constitutional issues, but one is a leading member of the Muslim Brotherhood the other is a theorizer of extremist views, especially regarding the position of non-Muslims in the Islamist state he proclaims.
By excluding from the panel political representatives from all other parts of the political spectrum even those behind or participating in the 'January 25 Revolution' the military is sending an unambiguous message regarding its bias (for whatever reasons) towards the Islamists.'
