The Camel Corps Gets the Hump

The prince and the president Photo: Amos Ben Gershom

“It has been a profoundly moving experience to visit Yad Vashem today. It is almost impossible to comprehend this appalling event in history.  Every name, photograph and memory recorded here is a tragic reminder of the unimaginable human cost of the Holocaust and of the immense loss suffered by the Jewish people.  The story of the Holocaust is one of darkness and despair, questioning humanity itself.  But the actions of those few, who took great risks to help others, are a reminder of the human capacity for love and hope.   I am honoured that my own great-grandmother [Prince Philip's mother, Princess Alice] is one of these Righteous Among the Nations.
We must never forget the Holocaust – the murder of 6 million men, women and children, simply because they were Jewish. We all have a responsibility to remember and to teach future generations about the horrors of the past so that they can never reoccur.  May the millions of Jewish people remembered by Yad Vashem never be forgotten“

That's what Prince William has written during his visit to Yad Vashem.  In this video he meets descendents of Jews saved by Princess Alice: report here

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GdcJvonQL4Y

For President Rivlin's meeting with the prince see here

Meanwhile: 

'William of Arabia, aka the Duke of Cambridge, heads out to dusty Ramallah tomorrow to meet the Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas. It’s a remarkable encounter for the second-in-line to the throne and not just because the Palestinian is a nasty piece of work (doctoral dissertation: “The secret relationship between Nazism and Zionism”). The sheer political sensitivity of an official trip to modern Israel and to the Palestinian Authority on the West Bank is such that no member of the royal family has ever undertaken it.

A shift in geopolitics has made the visit possible — and a cultural change in the Foreign Office, which has for many decades advised the royal household that it is better to don the appropriate headgear and butter up Arab autocrats than engage with the gritty detail of the Israeli-Palestinian relationship. The fear of giving offence to princelings has been the defining trait of the so-called camel corps of Britain’s Arab enthusiasts within the Foreign Office. It has, with flanking assistance from oil men and aerospace executives, become an almost institutional lobby that sees Israel as the troublemaker of the region and Arab leaders as being deeply misunderstood. [Emphasis added here and below]

The result: a skewed view of the Middle East that has left Britain so often wrong-footed by an unexpected crisis; a war, a revolution, a putsch that others had spotted in the making. Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait? Didn’t see it coming. The 2011 Arab Spring? A complete surprise.

For a long time I bought into the mystique of Britain’s Arabist expertise, and saw Israel’s concern about the camel corps simply as irrational suspicion of London’s motives dating back to the days of the Mandate. Did we not have plenty of informal contacts with Israel, a lively exchange of intelligence about its hostile neighbours, about the Soviet bloc and even about fugitive Nazis? And as for the royal family, they came often enough to Israel on private visits. Both Prince Philip and Prince Charles have been to visit the grave of Princess Alice on the Mount of Olives in Jerusalem, honoured for her role in hiding a Jewish family in German-occupied Athens. William too will pay tribute to his great-grandmother.'

 Thus wrote The Times of London's diplomatic editor Roger Boyes in that newspaper's 26 June issue.

'So why the fuss? Surely it was not that Britain was snubbing Israel but merely that the establishment was engaged in straightforward mercantilism, tapping oil money to keep jobs alive in Derby. Yet the camel corps is not a fata morgana. Young diplomats selected for early Arabic language training bond and follow intertwined career paths. There are 22 Arab language missions; even if the dips have to interrupt with a stint in Brussels or Washington, the Middle East pulls them back. A romantic vision of the Arab world translated until recently into a sense that Palestinians have drawn the short straw. And that Israel is gaming the West and the Americans in particular.

The Foreign Office advises the royal household on the political suitability of trips. No surprise then when in 2007 an email exchange between two courtiers was leaked amidst a discussion of a possible trip by Prince Charles to Israel. “Safe to assume there is no chance of this visit ever actually happening? Acceptance would make it hard to avoid the many ways in which Israel would want HRH to burnish its international image.”

The fear of undue Israeli influence over a fickle US president runs way back, to the foundation of a training centre in the hills above Beirut, the Middle Eastern Centre for Arabic Studies (Mecas). Originally set up in Jerusalem, it was moved to Lebanon in 1948 and its instructors were either Arabs deeply affected by the nakba, the enforced exodus of Palestinians from the new emerging state of Israel, or colonial-era British administrators in sympathy with them. Students, some of them not so long out of Oxbridge, found themselves living with simple Arab families.

It was dubbed locally the School of Spies and there were a few. Mark Allen, who was later in contention to become head of MI6 and who later still was drawn into a scandal about the treatment of interrogated suspects in Colonel Gaddafi’s prisons, studied there. He had kept a falcon while a schoolboy at Downside, went on to hunt with Bedouins and was pretty much a typical product of Mecas. Many emerged as experts not only on dialects but also tribal structures.

Even after Mecas shut down in 1978, its ethos continued. No matter that the young diplomats had spent their evenings watching Lebanese or Egyptian soap operas on flickering televisions, the deep undercurrents of Arab civilisation had to be respected, Arab grievances had to be taken seriously, even fetishised, if peace was to be achieved. It was a world view in which Israel was a disruptor of the natural order.

There’s no mistaking the anger simmering among Britain’s Arabists. Donald Trump’s relocation of the US embassy to Jerusalem, the support for Israeli settlements, the strength of the connection between Bibi Netanyahu and the president: all this turned their world upside down. The fact is the caravan has moved on. The Sunni Gulf Arabs share a common enemy with Israel: Iran. And the Palestinians are becoming a source of irritation for many Arab governments rather than a holy cause. When Israeli soldiers opened fire on Hamas-inspired protesters at the Gaza-Israel border wall last month, there was some official Arab grumbling but no serious political bust-up. The threat of Iran has become the overriding threat and Hamas receives Iranian support.

This has left Britain out of step. It sticks with European Union support for the Iran nuclear deal which, since the US withdrawal, is already dead in the water. Like the rest of the EU, it will keep its embassy in Tel Aviv rather than Jerusalem. These positions will have to yield to new realities. And the camel corps will have to adapt or be put out to pasture.'

Exposing The Arab Narrative's "Inversion of Reality"

Click HERE

Ahead of Prince William's visit next week to Jordan, Israel and the areas controlled by the Palestinian Authority Marvellous Melanie reminds us  of nefarious Foreign and Commonwealth Office manipulation in the matter via semantics.

Inter alia, she writes:

'Britain is implying that the Old City of Jerusalem, which houses the holiest sites in Judaism and Christianity, belongs as of right to the “Palestinians” and is illegitimately “occupied” by Israel. (That may be the inescapable logic of Britain’s position, but it normally sidesteps this most sensitive of implications). Worse still, it appears that the UK government is also saying that the Western Wall – the retaining wall of the ancient Jewish Temple, one of the most sacred places in Judaism – also belongs as of right to the “Palestinians”.... 

If Israel really has accepted “Britain and the European Union’s definition of east Jerusalem as ‘an occupied Palestinian territory’”, it has made itself complicit in one of the Arab world’s Big Lies. For the issue here is not just about the territorial status of Jerusalem’s Old City and the Western Wall.

There are no “occupied Palestinian territories” because there never were any Palestinian territories at all. There never was a sovereign country called Palestine, and there never were Arabs called Palestinians – until they were invented solely to destroy the Jews’ historic entitlement to the land.

For around four centuries, the lands which now constitute Israel, the West Bank and Gaza were occupied by the Ottoman empire. After the First World War they were administered by Britain under the Palestine Mandate; after the 1948 Arab war of extermination against the new State of Israel the area beyond the ceasefire lines, including east Jerusalem, was illegally occupied by Jordan (which desecrated and ripped up synagogues and ancient Jewish gravestones).

“Occupied Palestinian territories” is quite simply a lie several times over....'

Meanwhile, here's a recent talk by Irving Weisdorf, founder and CEO of The Mozuud Freedom Foundation, at Toronto's Holy Blossom Temple about the "inversion of reality" that characterises the Arab narrative regarding Israel and its history.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32so9SStfsE

A Dissenter in the Camel Corps in 1967

Not to be confused with Glasgow-born Sir John Rennie (1917-2002), Commissioner-General of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) for Palestine Refugees, 1971-77, London-born Sir John [Jack] Ogilvy Rennie (1914-81) was from 1968-71 Director of the Secret Intelligence Service (MI6) and a Foreign Office diplomat before that.

Here, reproduced in a tweet by Dr James Vaughan, of the Department of International Relations at the University of Aberystwyth, is a rather interesting memo that Rennie addressed in 1967 to Sir Paul (later Baron) Gore-Booth (1909-84), permanent secretary at the Foreign Office from 1965-69.

It seems Dissenting Jack may have been promoted sideways after that!

Where Did You Get That Hijab?

No, everyone does not, Ms Wells.

Pictured swathed in Burberry-patterned headgear a fortnight ago is Annie Wells MSP, Conservative and Unionist member of the Scottish legislature for the Glasgow district.

Ms Wells's choice of garment was not to protect herself against the February chills in her northerly part of the world, but to demonstrate her solidarity with women who wear the hijab.  For this Burberry number is indeed a hijab and she was marking "World Hijab Day" (1 February), now in its fifth year.

See some more Scottish politicians' reactions here; that from John Mason is nauseating.

It goes without saying that nobody should be insulted, much less assaulted, for wearing the hijab, but when western women are actively encouraged to wear it, and by the British Foreign Office too, then a step too far has surely been reached.

A London newspaper, the Evening Standard,  reported:

'The Foreign Office handed out free headscarves to staff and encouraged them to learn why Muslim women wear the garment as part of its World Hijab Day celebrations. The Government department, headed up by Boris Johnson, offered all employees the chance to wear a hijab for part of their day to mark the worldwide event on February 1. In an internal memo, the Foreign Office said that the headscarf is worn by some women who see it as representing “liberation, respect and security”.

According to reports, an email sent to staff said:  

“Would you like to try on a hijab or learn why Muslim women wear the headscarf? Come along to our walk-in event.Free scarves for all those that choose to wear it for the day or part of the day. Muslim women, along with followers of many other religions, choose to wear the hijab. Many find liberation, respect and security through wearing it. #StrongInHijab. Join us for #WorldHijabDay.”

A Foreign Office spokesman confirmed that the event was for staff at its London office who wanted to learn more about other cultures.'  [Emphasis added, here and below]

For the sake of pandering to the Islamic world at home and abroad the Foreign Office believes it appropriate for non-Muslim females to cover their heads in a scarf that many Muslim women themselves regard as a symbol of female subservience and which began as an indication of which women (the covered ones) were not to be considered fair game for sexual violence by Muslim men.

Having the right not to wear the hijab is the real issue.  

Just ask all those Iranian women who recently, in a brave act of defiance, have allowed their locks to blow freely in the wind as nature intended.

Let's look at that Foreign Office memo again:

“Would you like to try on a hijab or learn why Muslim women wear the headscarf? Come along to our walk-in event.

“Free scarves for all those that choose to wear it for the day or part of the day."

Methinks I sense Da'awa at work there.  This photo (above, left) from the Evening Standard would seem to confirm that view.

Reports the Daily Mail:

'The event was ... just days before Britain marked the 100th anniversary of women [aged 30 and above, plus university graduates aged 21-30] being given the vote.

Maajid Nawaz, who heads the counter-extremism think-tank the Quilliam Foundation, criticised the department for ‘supporting World Hijab Day and the institutional oppression of women through modesty culture, while brave Iranian women risk all to remove hijab tyranny’.

Anti-hijab activist Masih Alinejad told Reuters: ‘We are fighting against the most visible symbol of oppression. These women are saying, “It is enough – it is the 21st century and we want to be our true selves.”’ 

Tory MP Andrew Bridgen said: ‘I’d like to know whose bright idea this was. It is ridiculous, a complete waste of taxpayers’ money and not the business of a Government department.‘I can’t see the Foreign Office promoting Christianity or the handing out of crosses.’

No demonstrative Foreign Office stunts on behalf of the Islam-persecuted Christians of the Near and Middle East, then.

And I don't see the Foreign Office holding a demonstration of solidarity with Jews in the "new" Europe, who feel increasingly unsafe when wearing symbols of Judaism in public places.

World Kippa Day, anyone?

A Wee Dropping from the Foreign Office Camel Corps

From 1969 until his death in April 1974 at the age of 61, Welsh-born Trefor Ellis Evans held the
prestigious Woodrow Wilson Professorship of International Politics at the University of Wales, Aberystwyth (now known as the University of Aberystwyth).

Previous to taking up that post Evans had been a career diplomat.  To quote his obituary in The Times of 19 April 1974, he was

"one of the most accomplished Arabists in the Foreign Service, and by virtue of his understanding of and sympathy with the Arabs, had been able to fill with distinction a number of different posts in Arab countries.  Born in 1913, he was educated at Cowbridge and Balliol, where he graduated in 1934, later taking a doctorate of philosophy at Hamburg.  In 1937 he entered the Levant consular service, and after two years learning Arabic at Beirut, and a spell at Alexandria,he spent from 1941 to 1945 at the Embassy in Cairo. For much of this time he was private secretary to Lord Killearn, for whose forcefulness he conceived a strong admiration, and whose wartime diaries he was, 30 years later, to edit for publication. In 1945 he became British consul at Damascus ... and later served successively at Aleppo, Beirut, and the Foreign Office.

In 1952 he returned as oriental counsellor to Cairo, where the Nasserite revolution had just ousted King Farouk; four taxing years of servicethere were ended by the Suez adventure of 1956.  After two years at Berne, he became in 1959 consul-general at Algiers...and in 1962 ... he was appointed the first British ambassador to the new [Algerian] state. In 1964 he was transferred as ambassador to Damascus, and in 1967 to Baghdad...  In 1969, after some soul-searching, he resigned from the Foreign Service to fill the chair of international politics at the University of Wales."

This series of tweets, by a current academic at the same department at Aberystwyth, is interesting.

Fossilised it may be, but that wee dropping of Evans's is oh so typical of the Foreign Office "Camel Corps" mindset that continues to infest the FCO to the present day.

And what effect and legacy had Evans, one feels entitled to ask, over the young minds he encountered at a department generally conceded to be the top one of its kind in the United Kingdom, and who may have become diplomats, journalists, or academics in their turn?

The Iranian Nuclear Menace: Al Beeb Calls In The Camel Corps

Alas!  It's so typical of the BBC that as soon as Foreign Secretary William Hague warns that a nuclear-armed Iran could lead to a Cold War in the Middle East even worse than the one which existed between the USSR and the Western powers, it calls in the nay-sayers to undermine the argument.

True, an alternate viewpoint provides the balanced reportage that Al Beeb is obligated by its Charter to provide yet conspicuously lacks,  especially regarding the Middle East.   But to quote not one but two pundits (in addition to politicians) who contradict Hague weights the scales well away from equilibrium and smacks of deliberate propagandising.

Indeed, Al Beeb has turned for comment to a seemingly archetypal FCO Arabist, former Ambassador to Iran Sir Richard Dalton, who retired from the Diplomatic Service in 2006 and became an associate of Chatham House, specialising in the Middle East and North Africa.

From 1993-97 he was Britain's consul-general in Jerusalem.  In 1994 the then mayor of that city, Ehud Olmert, slammed as "apartheid" his plans, reflecting British policy, to hold separate Jewish and Arab functions in celebration of the Queen's birthday.  Mr Dalton, as he was at the time, was quoted in The Times as saying: "The real problem is the use of Israeli power in Jerusalem." (Jewish Chronicle, 17 July 1994)

Following three years as Britain's ambassador to Libya, Sir Richard became ambassador to Iran, which had refused to accept in that post fluent Farsi-speaker and Iran-expert David Reddaway on the erroneous assumption that he was a Jew (with links to MI6 for good measure).

In November 2009 Sir Richard appeared in Peter Oborne's notorious Dispatches programme on British TV Channel 4, "Inside Britain's Israel Lobby".

Guardian journalist Jonathan Freedland – a frequent critic of Israeli policy who hardly merits the term rabid Zionist – noted in the Jewish Chronicle (27 November 2009) that Dalton was

'one of the star turns on this month's Dispatches probe into the pro-Israel lobby.  If that programme played with a few of the most time-honoured tropes – a shadowy group of rich Jews pulling the strings of powerless politicians – than Dalton helpfully played on a few more.'

Freedland quoted Dalton as follows:

"What's unique about the pro-Israel lobbies is that they have good access to politicians, often operate behind the scenes and have primary regard – even though they may come from Britain – not for the interests of the British people but for a mixture of what they see as British interests and the interests of another country."  [My emphasis]

Commented Freedland sarcastically:

'Powerful, secretive, unpatriotic, and with allegiance to a foreign power – all in a single sentence!  Give that man a prize for sheer economy of language.'

Sir Richard, who spoke in the recent debate at the Cambridge Union in support of the motion "This House Would Rather Have A Nuclear Iran Than War", is quoted on the Al Beeb website thus:

"There are many signs, as reported by the International Atomic Energy Agency, that some research and development relevant to the development of nuclear weapons may still be going on.

But it is wrong to say that Iran is rushing towards having a nuclear weapon.

Indeed, the analysis published to the United States Congress by the top intelligence assessors there indicates that Iran has not taken a decision to have a nuclear weapon."

And despite signs that the regime of the mullahs, and Ahmadinejad himself, believes that strife and mayhem is a necessary prelude to the coming of the Twelfth Imam, young Shashank Joshi of the Royal United Services Institute has this phlegmatic message, which Al Beeb includes near the beginning of the same report:

"If we could live with nuclear weapons in the hands of totalitarian, genocidal states like Stalin's Russia or Mao's China, Iran in contrast – whatever its repulsive internal policies and adventurism abroad – is far more rational."

Rational?!

Ah, happy daze!

"I Couldn't Agree More With That Statement" Said The BBC Newsreader To The Anti-Monarchist

Her Majesty In Robes By Dhimmi Designs, Foreign Office

Yesterday marked the 60th anniversary of the accession of Queen Elizabeth II to the British throne (and so truly began this Jubilee Year of hers). 

The leftists who infest Al Beeb's news programming could not just lie back and enjoy the historicity of the occasion, of course.

So,  invited onto News24, was a bloke with the right royal name of Graham Smith.  Smith has a right royal grievance about the monarchy - he heads a group called Republic - and he also has (or rather, had) a right royal gripe about the BBC.

A year ago, as the nation geared up for the Royal Wedding (Kate and Wills), Al Beeb gave Mr Smith a guest spot on its College of Journalism (CoJo) website, so he could rant at length.

(Al Beeb's other critics, especially those of us who bemoan its anti-American, anti-Israel thrust, and deplore its suppression of the Balen Report, should be as lucky!)

This is part of what he wrote:

'The BBC has failed to convey the diversity of opinion about the monarchy. It has presented the issue as being one-sided and implied that the whole country is excited about the wedding. It has covered the plans and expectations of monarchists (who in a sense are also a minority) while ignoring Republic and republicans....
 
I believe one source of this problem is the BBC's failure to categorise the monarchy as a 'controversial issue'. I would stress that even without this categorisation our argument stands up and the Corporation's duty of impartiality applies. However, categorising this issue as controversial is not only appropriate, it would place greater emphasis on the need of editorial staff to ensure balanced and impartial coverage....

The issue is regularly a subject of debate in the media and is certainly contentious.... [O]pinion is clearly divided on the various issues around the monarchy. A number of MPs support the abolition of the monarchy, including Caroline Lucas MP, leader of the Green Party [and, incidentally, a veteran critic of Israel - D.A.]. Parliament has recently debated reforming the finances and secrecy of the institution....

Republic is not alone in questioning the BBC's royal coverage: there is a widespread view that the BBC has a pro-monarchy bias, a view even shared by some of the Corporation's own distinguished journalists. Not least, apparently, Jeremy Paxman, who in 2008 accused the BBC of "fawning" over the royal family, adding that the BBC did not know whether to "report" or "celebrate" royal events. I would suggest that the job of the BBC is to report, yet instead it ends up celebrating. 

And that is why Republic is seeking a meeting with BBC executives, asking for a review of royal reporting and a fairer, more balanced and more representative take on the issue of the monarchy.'

BBC executives obviously caved into him.  It was surely on the cards that they would. After all, it has been some years since Al Beeb instructed its staff not to refer to Wales as "The Principality" anymore (even though, constitutionally, a principality is exactly what Wales is) for fear of offending Welsh republicans!

In welcoming Smith to the airwaves yesterday newsreader Emily Maitlis observed:

"We love plurality on the BBC, Graham Smith, but this is going to be a tough old year for you, isn't it?"

The interview started well but ended with Ms Maitlis (notwithstanding the expectation of neutrallity inherent in the BBC's much-flouted Charter) giving her own personal endorsement to Smith's closing statement that the institution of monarchy should be subject to scrutiny and criticism:

"I couldn't agree more with that statement."

So here's my message to Ms Maitlis and the gang.  You want to put the right royal British Establishment right royally on the spot? You want to demonstrate afresh that love of pluralism, to ensure a voice for the dispossessed?

Right, then.

Next time a representative of the Foreign Office is interviewed, ask him/her point blank why, in her 60-year reign, the Queen has never once visited Israel (almost uniquely snubbed in this regard), whereas she has paid many visits to Arab countries, and when we can expect this right royal wrong to be put to rights.

For further posts by me on this subject see here and here

A Right Royal Wrong – the British Foreign Office's Unmajestic Boycott of Israel

The Queen in Abu Dhabi last year

A few days ago it was announced that the Queen and Prince Philip are to pay an official state visit to Ireland some time this year – the first since the Irish Republic’s independence, and the first visit to the Emerald Isle by a ruling British monarch since King George V’s visit 100 years ago. This will mean that there remain only two major countries in the world that Her Majesty has never visited – Greece and, yes, Israel.

Speaking in London at an Anglo-Israel Association dinner just over a year ago, and more recently at a Friends of Israel function, the well-known (non-Jewish) British historian Andrew Roberts reminded his listeners that not once in all the years that she has been on the throne, has Queen Elizabeth II ever been to Israel. The Foreign Office arranges royal visits to foreign countries, and he’d tackled it on the issue, only to be reminded that many countries besides Israel have not had a royal visit.

“That might be true for Burkino Faso and Chad, but the FO has somehow managed to find the time over the years to send the queen on state visits to Libya, Iran, Sudan, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco, Jordan and Turkey,” was his cynical reaction.

Mr Roberts, a supporter from the beginning of J. M. Aznar’s splendid Friends of Israel initiative, has said:

“The Jewish contribution to finance, science, the arts, academia, commerce and industry, literature, philanthropy and politics has been astonishing relative to their tiny numbers. Although they make up less than half of one per-cent of the world’s population, between 1901 and 1950 Jews won 14 percent of all the Nobel Prizes awarded for Literature and Science, and between 1951 and 2000 Jews won 32 percent of the Nobel Prizes for Medicine, 32 percent for Physics, 39 percent for Economics and 29 percent for Science. This, despite so many of their greatest intellects dying in the gas chambers.”

And he went on:

“Civilization owes Judaism a debt it can never repay, and support for the right of a Jewish homeland to exist is the bare minimum we can provide. Yet we tend to treat Israel like a leper on the international scene, merely for defending herself, and threatening her with academic boycotts if she builds a separation wall that has so far reduced suicide bombings by 95 percent over three years. It is a disgrace that no senior member of the Royal Family has ever undertaken an official visit to Israel, as though the country is still in quarantine after more than six decades.

Her Majesty the Queen has been on the throne for 57 years and in that time has undertaken 250 official visits to 129 countries, yet has not yet set foot in Israel. She has visited 14 Arab countries, so it cannot have been that she wasn’t in the region. Although Prince Philip’s mother Princess Alice is buried on the Mount of Olives because of her status as Righteous Among Gentiles, the Foreign Office ordained that his visit to his mother’s grave in 1994 had to be in a private capacity only. Royal visits are one of the ways legitimacy is conferred on nations, and the Coalition Government should end the Foreign Office’s de facto boycott.”

He’s in no doubt that the Foreign Office “has a ban on official royal visits to Israel, which is even more powerful for its being unwritten and unacknowledged. As an act of delegitimization of Israel, this effective boycott is quite as serious as other similar acts, such as the academic boycott, and is the direct fault of the FO Arabists.”

It may be tempting to dismiss this lack of a royal state visit with a shrug and a “So What?” But economic as well as diplomatic benefits would be likely to accrue – for both countries.

As the Minister for Commercial Affairs at the Israeli Embassy in London the executive director of the British Israel Chamber of Commerce pointed out in 2007, when there was speculation that Prince Charles might announce an official visit to Israel: “A visit by Prince Charles would bring with it new people and companies.” And as the Executive Director of the British Israel Chamber of Commerce remarked at that time: “At the heart of any high-profile visit to Israel is the branding of Israel as a normal country where business can flourish.”  But the Foreign Office is evidently far more interested in pursuing commercial relations with the Gulf States, and the behaviour of the present Coalition government reinforces that view.

If, as he told Anglo-Jewry's Community Security Trust recently, David Cameron's support for Israel really is "indestructible," he should ensure that the Foreign Office rectify this wrong, and schedule a royal state visit to Israel.

As the Daily Telegraph's deputy editor, Benedict Brogan, observes in an absolute corker of a pro-Israel op-ed (please read it: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/benedictbrogan/100079268/if-we-truly-are-israel%E2%80%99s-friend-then-now-is-the-time-to-show-it/):

‘So why, then, is Israel so uneasy about Britain? What is it that prompted Benjamin Netanyahu to tell The Daily Telegraph, just days before Mr Cameron spoke, that he is “worried” about this country? Why, when our Prime Minister speaks of his “indestructible” support, did Mr Netanyahu raise the “huge issue” of the decline in backing for Israel in the West and notably in the UK?

The truth is that relations between Jerusalem and London are bad, drifting to worse. British diplomacy has lost interest in Israel as an interlocutor; Israel, in turn, is increasingly of the view that the UK has turned from an indestructible ally into a gullible host for the global campaign to undermine its legitimacy. At a time when the affairs of the Middle East should preoccupy us all, Britain gives the impression of being indifferent to the concerns of a country that is not just the only democracy in the neighbourhood, but also one of our paramount allies in the fight against militant Islamism that Mr Cameron professes to consider a priority.

It is too easy to miss the importance that Britain, and London in particular, has acquired in the insidious campaign that is patiently hacking away at the global foundations of Israel’s existence. Dressed up in modish arguments about human rights, there has been an inexorable rebranding of Israel as an oppressive colonial power. Those who peddle this idea are happy to let the unspoken implication eat its way into the public consciousness: colonial powers eventually have to pack up and leave.

Mr Cameron is not the first premier to laud the reach of the English language and the clout it gives us in a globalised world. What he does not mention is that English is being used to spread the “de legitimisation” argument, and we are providing the megaphone. Together, the BBC and the internet act as an echo chamber for a coalition of religious and political campaign groups and academics of all stripes – some of them Jewish – pumping out a propaganda campaign of explicit and implicit hostility to Israel. No other country has a media with a global reach to match that of the UK, and yet the overwhelming message that it sends around the world is that Israel is the cuckoo in the nest, the obstacle to peace and prosperity in the Arab world....

William Hague, in enough trouble this week for his inexplicable decision to make public his uncertainty about being Foreign Secretary, has made no secret of his frustration with Israel....

It seems that Mr Netanyahu is unlikely to visit the UK this year. And I am told that there are no plans for Mr Cameron to visit Israel. Yet it is more essential than ever that the relationship between the two countries be strengthened, rather than be allowed to weaken. For once, next year in Jerusalem is not good enough. The Prime Minister should find a reason to visit his friends and tell them, face to face, why our links are indestructible.’

Drivers of Dhimmitude, Lovers of Londonistan: Britain’s Foreign Office Camel Corps and the Betrayal of Israel

In 2006 British journalist Martin Bright authored When Progressives Treat with Reactionaries: The British State’s flirtation with radical Islam (published by the think tank Policy Search), available online as a PDF file. Bright dedicated the pamphlet to “a Foreign Office whistleblower whose courageous actions have allowed me to expose Whitehall’s love affair with Islamism.”

The whistleblower, Derek Pasquill, subsequently lost his job. "My client has been victimised," his lawyer said, "He believed that the public had a right to know about what he believed to be a dangerous government policy."

Dangerous indeed. For, thanks to Pasquill, Bright was able to expose the Foreign Office’s links with the Muslim Brotherhood via the Muslim Council of Britain and dependence on radical Islamist advisers, together with the fact that “the Government’s strategy towards the British Muslim community has been driven in recent years by the Foreign Office rather than any domestic department of state”.

This continuing process began when Jack Straw was Foreign Secretary – in 2001 he established a unit that became known as Engaging With the Muslim World.

That unit's head (2004-6), until her present appointment as ambassador to Lebanon, was Britain's former ambassador to Yemen (2001-4), Frances Guy – who would become so notoriously enamoured of Sheikh Fadlallah, the Hezbollah Holocaust-denier who masterminded terrorist attacks and the kidnappings of several British hostages as well as issuing a fatwa supporting suicide bombings in Israel, and blogged a fulsome tribute to him!

Here she is, in obeisant posture – and note that low chair, hardly worthy of the envoy of Her Britannic Majesty! – hanging on the great man’s words.

And see http://daphneanson.blogspot.com/2011/01/through-lens-dhimmily-britains-middle.html as well as  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1293417/William-Hague-pressed-sack-ambassador-praising-Hezbollah-cleric-backed-suicide-bombers.html

As head of the Engaging With the Muslim World Group Frances Guy established ties with such luminaries of radical Islam as Sheikh Yousef al-Qaradawi (pictured, in a British tabloid), known for his justification of suicide bombings in Israel and Iraq, of wife-beating and of the killing of gays, and with virulently anti-Western Bangladeshi MP Delwan Hossain Saayadi, and she arranged (at a cost to the British taxpayer of £300,000) a two-day (1-2 July 2006) “Muslims in Europe” conference at a luxury hotel in Istanbul, at which they were speakers.

Reported The Times acerbically:

'The Government’s funding appears to contradict the view of Tony Blair that radicals who support terrorism should not be tolerated. The Egyptian-born cleric has defended Palestinian suicide bombings as “a weapon which the weak resort to”.

Last year, after the July 7 bombings in London, Mr Blair said: “Let me make it clear . . . we want nothing to do with people who support suicide bombers in Palestine or elsewhere or support terrorists.”

In March Mr Blair specifically condemned the extremist ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood, of which Dr al-Qaradawi is the spiritual leader.

Dr al-Qaradawi, 80, is banned from entering the United States and last visited Britain in 2004 as a guest of Ken Livingstone, the Mayor of London. That trip provoked widespread protest from Jewish groups and gay rights organisations.

The Board of Deputies of British Jews referred a dossier on the cleric’s comments to the Crown Prosecution Service but it ruled that there were no grounds on which to charge him with any offence.

Despite the concerns about Dr al-Qaradawi, an influential element within the FCO has lobbied against any attempts by 10 Downing Street and the Home Office to exclude him permanently from Britain.

An FCO memo written last July, a copy of which has been seen by The Times, described him as “a highly respected Islamic scholar” and argued that he had condemned the 9/11 atrocities and the 7/7 bombs.

The author of the memo said that the cleric “should not be excluded from the United Kingdom given his influence in relation to our foreign policy objectives”. He [she; i.e. Guy?] did not spell out those policy aims.

An FCO spokesman defended the decision to pay for Dr al-Qaradawi’s attendance at the conference, describing him as “one of the leading Muslim scholars in the world”.

The spokesman added that although the Government had funded the conference it was left to a steering group, which included Sir Iqbal Sacranie, the former head of the Muslim Council of Britain, to invite participants. He added: “We knew Qaradawi was going. The point of the conference, and the reason we were keen to be involved, was to provide a platform to debate contemporary issues facing Muslims in Europe”.' http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article686879.ece

Said the conference blurb: “For a broader dialogue to happen, we must state clearly and often that Muslims can also be Europeans. This is not a clash of civilisations. We have a common interest in being vigilant against Islamophobia and in standing up to the advocates of terror”.

And an account of the conference explained, inter alia:

“The past few years have been very challenging for the Muslims in the western world. Unfortunately the true picture of Islam has not been shown to the world although many efforts have been made by Islamic Organizations as well as Muslim individuals in many parts of Europe.

The British Foreign and Commonwealth office organized a 2 day conference … to discuss the Identity, Citizenship, and Challenges & Opportunities with regards to the Muslims in Europe. Prominent Muslim Scholars, intellectuals, academics and government officials participated from more than 20 countries of the world.

…. Shaykh Hamza Yusuf, Dr Tariq Ramadan, Shaykh Hakim Murad, Shaykh Nuh Keller, Dr Mohamed Mestiri, Dilwar Hussain along with many more prominent scholars were the main participants who contributed in the conference.

The final and last speech among the main speakers was delivered by Shaykh-ul-Islam Dr Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri on the 2nd day of the conference before the final session. Shaykh-ul-Islam Dr Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri spoke on the true concept of identity and citizenship that Islam has given to the [sic] Humanity.

Islam has introduced the disciplines of plural society and has laid the foundations for an ideal plural society keeping the rights of every individual living in the society no matter what faith the individual belongs from.

Shaykh ul Islam Dr Muhammad Tahir ul Qadri further said that TERRORISM HAS NO RELIGION. [Their emphasis] It is a social act and it is linked to society due to several reasons. Terrorism is an act that is a reaction due to specific reasons. Terrorism can be from any society but it has no link to any religion in the world. Terrorism can be American, it can be Indian, it can be Christian, Jewish, Chinese or it can be based on any society or country but cannot be taken to be a part of any religion. [My emphasis]

Shaykh ul Islam Dr Muhammad Tahir ul Qadri concluded his speech by emphasising that Europe has always been in favour of Muslims within Europe and in the foreign world. But Europe needs to promote the true picture of Islam by placing modern learned Islamic Scholars and intellectuals as the participants of this conference on the media. Unfortunately media has not been playing its role in promoting the true picture of Islam due to which many problems have arisen for the Muslims as well as the European societies.” http://www.minhaj.org/english/tid/3560/Muslims-of-Europe-Conference.html

Moreover:

“Muslims from all over Europe came at the beginning of July to Istanbul to discuss such hotly debated issues as combating extremism, citizenship, identity, faith and its public role. The result of the 2-days conference entitled "Muslims of Europe: challenges and opportunities" has been not only numerous recommendations but also the following Topkapi Declaration....

• Islam's presence in Europe is not a new phenomenon but a historically long and culturally rich one. Its interaction with European society sparked a flowering in knowledge. Large numbers of Muslims have continuously inhabited the Balkans, Eastern and Central Europe for hundreds of years. Muslims have played an important role in the transfer and production of knowledge to and in Europe. They have subsequently helped to rebuild the economies of a war torn continent in the 1950s, arriving as immigrants seeking employment and settling to make Europe their home. In almost every field of life Muslims have thus been an integral part of the European tapestry. European Muslims today are at home in Europe; they have been contributors to Europe 's past and are stakeholders in its future.

• We recognise that European societies value openness, inclusiveness and democracy. European Muslims have a great opportunity to flourish as citizens in a pluralistic environment benefiting from access to education, prosperity and development. As citizens Muslims are obliged by Islamic law to obey the legislation of their countries particularly when they enjoy freedom of worship and benefit from social justice. As loyal citizens they are obliged to defend their countries against aggressors.

• Similarly in accordance with the teachings of Islam, Muslims also have a duty to promote social harmony and good relations with their neighbours. The virtues of decency, goodness and ethical conduct in all aspects of life are espoused repeatedly in the Holy Qur'an....

• One of the principles of a democratic society is freedom of religion. Islam also recognises freedom of religion, and like Europe today, gives this ethical ethos particularly strict importance. As stated by God in the Holy Qur'an , people cannot be coerced into belief ...

• As full and dynamic citizens aware of their rights as well as their responsibilities, European Muslims have the right to criticise, dissent and protest, as do all European citizens. This right is in accordance with the democratic processes of Europe and in accordance with their faith. Islam calls upon all Muslims to promote the common good and welfare ( maslaha) of society as a whole and prevent what is wrong ( munkar).

• However, we witness with great sadness the challenges that face many European Muslims, who suffer at the hands of those who resent their presence in Europe or those whose crude sentiments leave no place for people of different colour, culture or creed. It is a challenge to which we must all rise. We condemn Islamophobia and discrimination in all their forms. If Europe 's Muslims are treated as second class citizens, or seen as a burden or even a threat to society, then the level of trust built up over the centuries which is essential for the establishment of peace across the world will be jeopardised. There have also been problems of disenfranchisement and poverty particularly amongst Muslim youth. European Muslim youth should be seen as a positive force, which can benefit the labour force and social fabric of Europe

• We strongly urge European governments to promote inclusiveness and dialogue. This should be done through measures such as education, to encourage greater mutual knowledge and understanding, as well as social programmes to tackle socio-economic disadvantage. We applaud those European governments who have taken active measures to stem racism and who have legislated against overt and institutionalised forms of discrimination against minorities. We also acknowledge that the media has a role in ensuring accurate and responsible coverage.

• Terrorism in all its forms is an affront to our humanity. Under no circumstances does Islam permit terrorism and the killing of civilians. Terrorism is in direct contravention to the principles of Islam and the vast majority of Muslims remain faithful to these teachings. We condemn and abhor the violent actions of a tiny minority of Muslims who have unleashed violence and terror—by distorting the teaching of Islam—upon innocent neighbours and fellow citizens. The Holy Qur'an clearly declares that killing an innocent person is tantamount to killing all of mankind and likewise saving a single life is as if one had saved the life of all mankind ( Al-Mai'dah, 5:32 ). This is both a principle and a command.

• We remain committed to working to ensure that the voice of the peaceful majority of Muslims overcomes that of the tiny minority who seek to promote distorted misinterpretations of Islam. We join our voices to those of scholars from across the world to say that we reject the cancer of terrorism. We pray for the guidance of those to whom extremism and violence may seem an attractive route.

• We also call on the world to work harder and more consistently to eliminate the injustices and grievances, like in Palestine, that have contributed to the hopelessness and despair of many Muslims and peoples across the world. [My emphasis] Wars are not the way to solve conflict and we should work together to find a humane and moral ways to solve problems.

• Finally, we concur with and respect the Amman Message of November 2004; with the Final Declaration issued by the International Islamic Conference held in Jordan in July 2005; with the statements and fatawa of numerous scholars from across the Muslim world that preceded this conference and upon which this conference was based; with the Makkah Declaration and Final Summaries of the OIC Summit held in December 2005, the final statement of the Islamic Fiqh Academy held in Jordan in June 2006; as well as the 15 th session of the European Council for Fatwa and Research in its declaration concerning engagement with society and positive integration and the declaration of European Muslims made by the Supreme Council of the Islamic Community of Bosnia and Herzegovina of 2005 – in essence to develop solidarity amongst Muslims and establish justice. We recognise that solidarity of the Ummah is a key priority for all Muslims – both in Europe and throughout the world. [My emphasis] We join our fellow Muslims the world over to challenge those who seek to misuse our faith corrupting its message. We call for solidarity between us and the upholding of Islam's universal vision of peace, fraternity, tolerance and social harmony.

2 July 2006, Istanbul  http://www.setav.org/public/HaberDetay.aspx?Dil=tr&hid=13570&q=muslims-of-europe-conference-challenges-and-opportunities

The Foreign and Commonwealth Office panders to Islamism at the expense of Israel, and enthuses about the Muslim presence in Britain – and the rest of Europe. Here, for instance, are extracts from Frances Guy’s speech at Beirut Arab University in March last year.

http://ukinlebanon.fco.gov.uk/en/news/?view=PressR&id=21942532

“London has traditionally been a place of refuge and tolerance; Marx after all wrote his classic work in the British Library. London was the favourite place of exile of anarchists and revolutionaries. More recently it has been seen as the home of Muslim opposition forces, even leading to the French coining the term Londonistan. This is a heritage that we are proud of, even if it makes us occasional enemies of other governments.”  [My emphasis]

The first person plural presumably describes the elite that inhabits the FCO and other Whitehall departments – the transformation of London into “Londonistan”, with all it portends for national security and the demographic future of the island nation is surely not one that too many Britons regard with relish.

“Today in the United Kingdom we are proud to have Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews... Muslims represent about 3% of the total British population, about 2 million people. There are now over 1,200 mosques in the UK and more than 110 Muslim schools. Some of these are state schools. There are different arguments about the value or otherwise of faith schools. ... Muslims in the UK have been able to use human rights legislation successfully to argue that if the state provides other faith schools, in this case, Church of England and Catholic schools, then the state should also provide Muslim schools where demand justified such a provision.”

Notice how Jews, whose communal presence dates to 1656, are lumped in with communities she is citing as settling since the Second World War, and also notice how they bring up the rear in this list, reflecting a trend not untypical of British speeches of this kind.

“Trevor Griffiths of the Equality Commission in the UK argues that British commonsense provides an approach to human rights that is deeply ingrained in our British history that tells us for example, that while free speech cannot be traded for cultural sensitivity, the right to offend does not imply an obligation to insult. I agree that ordinary citizens understand that there are limits to how one exercise freedom to express your point of view but I think nevertheless that it takes a legal framework to ensure it – a framework that ensures that people demonstrating against the Israeli Embassy in London do not use abusive anti-Semitic language, and a framework that balances the right to publish with the protection of minorities.”

Notice how demonstrating against Israeli policy is taken as a given. Furthermore, her contention that “abusive anti-Semitic language” does not occur at such events is nonsensical.

Here, for example, is what the journalist Douglas Davis wrote following the ugly scenes in Londonistan (and elsewhere in Eurabia) during Operation Cast Lead:

 ‘At my dinner table on Friday night, a holocaust survivor admits that she is trying to persuade her son to take his family out of Europe to America, Canada, Australia, Canada, Australia, Israel...’They say they can’t leave me, but I tell them: “Go, get out. My parents left my grandparents behind in Berlin and brought me to safety in England. Now I want you to leave so that my grandchildren will be safe.”’ There is an unbearable desperation in her plea. But she has a point.

As tens of thousands of demonstrators march through the streets of Europe, the chants are modified but the message remains substantially intact: ‘Hamas, Hamas, Hamas – Jews to the Gas’. Or, more simply: ‘Death to the Jews’. Many European Jews, even well-established, affluent Jews, have been checking the suitcase they keep packed under the bed. They have been here before and many are (albeit reluctantly) reading the writing on the wall.

To some extent I thought I was inured. I grew up in postwar apartheid South Africa where a subtle undercurrent of anti-Semitism was a fact of everyday life. So while I was disturbed by manifestations of mob anti-Semitism, I was also less vulnerable to shock. That’s just how people are. Living in genteel, leafy Hampstead Garden Suburb provides an additional layer of protection from such crass outbursts.

But my sanguine state ends abruptly when I am out walking on Saturday. A hundred yards from my front door, I encounter the slogan, freshly painted in yellow, across the pavement: ‘Kill the Filthy Jews’. I am shocked. And shocked that I am shocked. The message is too close for comfort. The leafy gentility is, after all, an illusion.

Those who study these matters tell me that the current convulsion of anti-Semitism is the worst in a generation. They also say that there is a direct, causal link with the Israeli military operation against Hamas in Gaza. Once upon a time, anti-Israel protesters insisted they were motivated by political animus against Zionism rather than racial prejudice against Jews. The Hamas Charter, which sets out of the guiding principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement – xenophobic, racist and anti-Semitic – removes the distinction.’
http://www.spectator.co.uk/politics/all/3300206/letters.thtml
See also http://hurryupharry.org/2009/01/14/cause-and-effect/

The FCO’s dogged determination to court the Muslim world at the expense of Israel can be seen not only in the extreme anti-Israel blog (courtesy of the official website of the FCO) of British ambassador in Jordan James Watt (http://daphneanson.blogspot.com/2011/01/through-lens-dhimmily-britains-middle.html ) but in that of Dominic Asquith, Britain’s ambassador to Egypt.

He’s a great-grandson of a former British prime minister, Herbert Henry Asquith (later 1st Earl of Oxford and Asquith), and, incidentally, a relative of Emma Clark, Lord Oxford’s great-granddaughter, who’s one of a number of notable white British converts to Islam trumpeted as trophies on Islamic websites (these converts include the son of John Birt, who was once Director-General of the BBC, and the Earl of Yarborough).

Mr Asquith is himself a Catholic, and has often addressed the need to understand Islam.

In October, he had this to say:

‘The world over, people empathised with the case of Sufiyatu Huseini in Nigeria, who faced the threat of stoning for adultery, just as many do now with Sakineh Ashtiani in Iran. Similarly with Abdallah Abu Rahma, a Palestinian blogger sentenced last week to one year in prison by an Israeli military court. British diplomats attended his case in court: as my government declared, “We are concerned that his continued detention is intended to prevent him and other Palestinians from exercising their legitimate right to non violent protest against the annexation of Palestinian land to Israel. Or Hossein Derakhshan, another blogger who was sentenced last month to 19 years in prison in Iran...’

Bit thick, isn’t it, lumping a democratic ally’s treatment of a blogger who poses a security threat in with the Ahmadinejad regime’s draconian punishments. (And, anyway, Asquith's blog is supposedly about his work in Egypt just as Watt's is supposedly about the latter's work in Jordan, not with dissing Israel.  Imagine the outcry if, say, Britain's ambassador in Germany blogged gratuitous criticisms of Poland ...)

(Notice, incidentally, how that exact latter phrase, obviously from the Camel Corps’ Corpus of Controlled Quotations, turns up in the FCO’s statement of 13 January this year, which condemns the raising of Abu Rahma’s term to 16 months: “We are concerned by the Israeli military court’s decision to extend Abdallah Abu Rahma’s sentence on charges of incitement and organising and participating in demonstrations to 16 months. British Diplomats, including the Consul General Sir Vincent Fean, as well as diplomats from other EU Member states have continued to attend all hearings in Abu Rahma’s case... We remain concerned that his extended sentence is intended to prevent Abdallah and other Palestinians from exercising their right to non violent protest against the annexation of Palestinian land to Israel”.)

Asquith goes on:

“Humanity and tolerance will continue to lose their chance of being heard if their aim is just silent co-existence. In Germany, the latest concerns about immigration and suggestions that multiculturalism has failed underline the importance of what Bill Clinton said when he was in Cairo recently. He referred to the fear that many non-Muslims felt about Islam. That was a reality which we all needed to face and try and deal with.... What Muslims should feel rightly angry about, he went on, was the way in which that fear was expressed.”

And then, of course, there’s the question of what the dhimmi dame should wear on state visits to Muslim countries. Just look at the way Foreign Secretary William Hague’s wife Ffion was forced to dress on a visit to Abu Dhabi last year – turned from educated, independent woman (she’s an Oxford graduate and an author) into a sinful female body that must be completely hidden from view, all for the sake of some perceived diplomatic advantage.

Surely a long-sleeved, high-necked western dress with a suitably modest hemline would have sufficed not to offend the hosts, rather than this bizarre affront to Ffion Hague’s dignity, and indeed an insult to all British women, especially since their protracted struggle for equal rights was won well within living memory. (I’m sure that greatest of Foreign Secretaries, Lord Palmerston – a philosemite, by the way – must be spinning in his grave, not necessarily on account of this insult to women, but owing to the self-imposed dhimmitude of those who “never never never shall be slaves”!)

Why, the FCO Camel Corps has even tried to dhimmify the Queen!

No prizes for guessing why there’s never been an official royal visit to Israel, by the way!

I shall be addressing that topic quite soon – so please stay tuned!

Stand by Your Guy!

On the London Daily Telegraph blogs over the weekend (blogs.telegraph.co.uk), Washington-based foreign affairs analyst and political commentator Nile Gardiner argued compellingly that British Foreign Secretary William Hague should sack Fadlallah-loving  Ambassador to Lebanon Frances Guy. 

Compelling to all people of good sense, though not, it seems, to Hague and his Arabist FCO pals.  But it does seem that  Britain downgraded its diplomatic presence at Fadlallah's funeral - his ambassadorial admirer does not appear to have attended.

Another photo of the lady - in her Eastern bonnet - with the terror-promoting sheikh has just surfaced (hat tip: Derek Pasquill, commenting over at CiF Watch).  She sure seems to have enjoyed the old terror merchant's company, eh?

Enjoy! (If you can.)  Personally, I wonder whether it's totally necessary for the non-Muslim representative of a (once?) great power to cover her locks, obeisant-like, in this way.  Were she observing prayers in a mosque, I could understand it.  But in a secular setting?  Dhimmi - I mean dear me - no.

Watt Amman! More Quackers from the FCO Camel Corps

Foreign Secretary William Hague - himself no great shakes when it comes to standing up to the world's bullies - was reportedly  'very unimpressed' with Frances Guy's  blogged infatuation with the Israel-loathing, West-hating, terror-peddling Sheik Fadlallal, and after 'mature consideration' that blog was removed.

Still, unlike Octavia Nasr, CNN's Middle East editor, who on Twitter described Fadlallal as 'One of Hezbollah's giants I respect a lot' and promptly lost her job as a result, Britain's envoy in Beirut has kept hers.  Now, the woman who when head of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office's Engaging with the Islamic World  unit met all kinds of unsavoury types in appeasement's cause, and who in her current role pioneered diplomatic talks with Hezbollah, has blogged an apology of sorts. (Well, she would, wouldn't she?)
    
Now, it turns out, Britain's man in Amman, James Watt, has been indulging in a lot of dodgy blogging of his own (hat tip: Harry's Place).  It seems a youthful meeting with Lord Caradon opened his eyes to the wicked ways of those pesky Zionists, though perhaps Mrs Watt, Amal Saad, who's a member of an Arab family, has jaundiced the ambassador's view of Israel too. 

"Completely non-factual assertions - for example that a Jewish people was building Jerusalem 5000 years ago - only serve to emphasise the absence of real content or reason" he thundered in March this year.  "No one is prepared - or very few - to take Zionist arguments at their face value any longer."  "The origin of the problem - the arrival of the Zionists in Palestine, with their commitment to avoiding any kind of integration into existing society, and their policy of importing their co-religionists from cultural and social backgrounds alien to Palestine, changed everything", he proclaimed on 1 July.  "So did the massive expulsion of huge numbers of Palestinians from their land.  Their right to return, and to compensation, remains the central demand, backed by all Arab states and reflected also in the principles set out by the international community for peace."  Other blogs by Mr Watt mirror the view of his Arabist FCO masters regarding the Goldstone Report, the Gaza Blockade, the Mavi Marmara affair, and so on.

And, it would seem, just like Ambassador Guy (I talk from experience) Ambassador Watt is decidedly reluctant to allow non-sycophantic comments to blight his blog.

Back in 2007, right around the time of Iran's capture of 15 Royal Naval personnel whose vessel had drifted too near to Iranian waters, I was in London to attend a meeting of a specialist historical society entirely unconnected with Jews or Israel.  Afterwards, five of us were guests of the chairman, at dinner at his club in Pall Mall.  Just as the second course arrived, the man on my right (who despite my very Jewish surname had insisted on extolling to me, and not jocularly either, the virtues of the menu's pork, which he proceeded to order) was asked by the man on my left what he made of the Iran naval affair.  To my astonishment, the reply was an invective-laden denunciation not of Iran, but of Israel - which, he claimed, was responsible for all of the ills of the Middle East.

I had a choice.  I could either sit silent and ladylike, or I could give him a piece of my mind.  Reluctant to embarrass our genial host, I nevertheless chose to do the latter - while my fellow diners, obviously uncomfortable, almost buried their heads in their plates.

Who was the man who spoke so ill of Israel? Why, a former officer in one of Britain's armed services and a leading official at the Ministry of Defence - that's who.

These days, it seems, the droppings of the FCO Camel Corps extend the length and breadth of Whitehall.

Britain's Beirut Envoy - another Foreign Office Arabist kind of Guy

There she sits, hunched forward,  her crowning glory hidden beneath a scarf, smilingly catching his every word.  Frances Guy, Britain's ambassador to Lebanon, and Sheikh Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah, the popular Shia cleric who passed away a few days ago. 

Sheikh Fadlallah apparently had many sterling qualities -  his progressive view of women's role and status being just one of them - and attracted numerous admirers.

However, the man said to be Hezbollah's spiritual leader had less palatable views regarding Israel and the West.  He justified terror. He wanted Israel annihilated. For instance, he encouraged suicide bombers against the Jewish State, declaring that "All of Palestine is a war zone and every Jew who unlawfully occupies a house or land belonging to a Palestinian is a legitimate target.  There are no innocent Jews in Palestine."  He declared that Zionists had vastly exaggerated the number of Jews killed in the Holocaust. And he praised the deadly bombing of the United States Embassy in Beirut 27 years ago.
 
Notwithstanding all that, Ambassador Guy has blogged a eulogy for Sheikh Fadlallah, in which she reveals him as her "favourite politician" (hat tip: Elder of Ziyon).  In the course of that eulogy - headed "The passing of decent men" - she has not made any attempt to dissociate herself from his uncompromising attitude towards Israel.

Is this acceptable to the British Foreign Office - whose Arabist predilections are well-known though sometimes (weakly and implausibly) denied: that their envoy to one country should be permitted to express adulation for a politically influential  public figure of that country who advocates violence against the citizens of another country and, for good measure, that country's destruction?  A country that is an ally, no less, of Britain? Is this the shameful reality of Britain today?

[Update: Ms Guy's ill-conceived eulogy has now mysteriously disappeared into cyber heaven; however, a screen-shot of her extraordinary post may be viewed on Elder of Ziyon's blog, official Foreign and Commonwealth Office heading and all. ]

[Further update: as of Friday morning, the post is retrievable via Bing - but not Google.  Type her name into Bing and when the start of the post appears onscreen press Cached Page, and you'll get it all - except, that is, for the comments accompanying it.]