The papers and the broadcasters have already leaked a little. One, on Gordon Brown, and two on Mr Blair’s appearance in January at the Iraq Inquiry.
On Gordon Brown it is said by one of the leaking papers that Tony Blair has accused Mr Brown of “trying to blackmail me.”
Even without the present soul of the Labour party leadership campaign this, if true, is explosive stuff. Begging the obvious question: blackmailing him about what exactly?
Hammer and Tongs poised, ferals!
On his Iraq Inquiry appearance, at which I was a witness to the witness (see here), it seems he has said that the reason he did not apologise for soldiers’ deaths was that he knew that the headlines would be:
“Sixthly any apology would have been purposely misinterpreted by the press as an overall apology for the Iraq campaign due to his personal fear of repercussions if he hadn’t apologised. This inevitable accusation of the sudden discovery of a conscience would have been entirely inaccurate in EVERY way, factual and by implication.”
This reason – press headlines mis-presented – was only ONE of seven reasons I gave for Mr Blair’s failure to apologise at the Chilcot Inquiry. There are probably even more.
Back to today and countdown time.
Described by The Telegraph as set to become the “biggest selling political memoir of all time” A JOURNEY has been THE most anticipated memoir for years, if not decades. What a pity the Telegraph couldn’t have updated their picture of the title cover along with their news, don’t you think? It’s now A JOURNEY not THE JOURNEY. THE Journey made it sound as though he’d finally arrived.
Tomorrow night, on the day the book is released, Andrew Marr will interview the former prime minister, the only broadcast interview this side of the Atlantic. If you’ve already ordered your copy of the book, it should be with you on Friday.
The BBC's Andrew Marr will interview Tony Blair at 7:00pm, Wednesday 1st September 2010
“Getting really bored with the persistence with which people pursue their anti-Blair propaganda, steadfastly refusing to see any good in the man.” – AND – “Tony Blair was the greatest Prime Minister since Winston Churchill and the only regret I have he didn’t get my vote as I live in Canada.”
UPDATE: A propos of nothing to do with the Labour leadership fun and games, you need to watch this. PRICELESS. It’ll make you laugh or at least smile. Guaranteed. OK, here it is -
SHUT UP – YOU WINNERS!!!
After Peter Mandelson‘s warning (video) about the leadership of Labour (aka New Labour) and the sadly inevitable response to the Dark Lord’s words, Iain Martin puts it succinctly here. [The links in the next two paragraphs are not Mr Martin's, but have been added automatically by WordPress's wise new tool.]
“At last, the Labour leadership race has come alive. The Dark Lord (Mandelson) has clearly got sick of it being a mealy-mouthed affair and has criticized Ed Miliband — saying he wants to hark back to an age before New Labour rather than reaching out into floating voter land. It was a perfectly fairly worded critique, the normal stuff of healthy, robust political exchange in a democracy.
But his comments have been treated as a declaration of war. Lord Kinnock, cited by the Dark Lord as a Miliband E supporter, says Mandelson should shut up (although he typically takes 150 words to say it rather than two). Mandelson should now retire with dignity. Lord Hattersley (Kinnock’s deputy from the days when Labour didn’t win elections) joins in, accusing Mandelson of factionalism. Note the term “factionalism”; haven’t heard that charge in a while, another echo of Labour’s struggles with itself in the 1980s. Polly Toynbee in the Guardian today gets very excited, and tells the Blairite veterans to bow out and make way for a new generation (an order I presume she doesn’t envisage being extended to veteran newspaper columnists).”
TB/GBs – THE CONTINUING ADVENTURE…?
PART 2 – NK/PM – [Kinnock/Mandelson.] Notable aside and of course just a happy/unhappy coincidence that those initials – NK PM – were NEVER actually seen side-by-side.
“Getting really bored with the persistence with which people pursue their anti-Blair propaganda, steadfastly refusing to see any good in the man.” – AND – “Tony Blair was the greatest Prime Minister since Winston Churchill and the only regret I have he didn’t get my vote as I live in Canada.”
UPDATE: Confession. As I mentioned at an earlier post, I was watching this programme because my new friend Peter was on it. Except he wasn’t in the end. It time out. I had started to draft it with Peter Reynolds’ name in the title, then changed it to ‘John Rentoul‘. JR to the rescue! Read Peter’s very amusing account of his on/off encounter with the most attractive Susanna Reid. Disappointed? I’m sure she is.
After they discussed REALLY important things like the furore over the woman, Mary Bale, who put her the cat [not hers, it seems - humble apologies] Lola in a bin, and the ensuing calls for her death on Facebook as well as millions of hits on YouTube [watch here.]
The BIG question on the programme was – “Are we too obsessed with animals?”
Yes, many Brits ARE nuts over animals. Hypocritically so, considering we eat them after some cruel farming methods, and wear their skins daily on our feet.
And, yes, the reactive attacks on this woman, whose action was clearly reprehensible, was way OTT.
Next question?
Should faith schools be abolished? Placed by historian Francis Beckett. He was concerned that children were being taught religious opinion as FACT. Beckett thinks that the phrase “Christian values” is the most pernicious phrase in the language. Lovely how people exaggerate to make a point, even historians, who should know better. I can think of a few more pernicious, like say “Tony Blair is a war criminal”.
Anne Atkins responded that faith itself is the basis of our society, law, parliament, even government. Her angle was that it seemed wrong-headed to throw out our society’s mores, and possibly our law, parliament and government in order to either dismiss faith or place them all on a level playing field.
This link with our very society (Christian/Jewish link) is one I have often made. At least religious schools are presently subject to some sort of inspection and regulation. On this, if not on her opinions on Tony Blair (read below) I think she was more right than wrong, and far more correct than Beckett.
He, by illuminating contrast, was COMPLETELY WRONG, on everything.
Francis Beckett usually IS wrong.
Pernicious enough phrase for you, Mr Beckett?
If anyone thinks that Jews and Muslims will accept the “abolish faith schools” proposition, without putting something else in its place, they were born yesterday.
Personally I have taught in Anglican and Catholic schools, and they taught about ALL religions. Do… would Muslim schools?
Beckett: “No he wasn’t a visionary and he wasn’t a peace-maker … the minimum wage was the key one.” [He then complained about the then low (at the time) rate of the minimum wage.]
Susanna Reid: “So everything that came out of the Blair years you qualify?”
Beckett: “Yes.”
Charlie Wolf: “He [Blair] saw the bigger picture – over 9/11 – Afghanistan, Iraq – he wasn’t a poodle – took a lot of guts.”
Atkins: “I’m not a natural Blairite … loathe the policies … not my phrase but he will go down as a ‘war criminal’ … the war in Iraq was a disgrace … over a lie … those tens of thousands are on our conscience … he does have stature and a wholesome personality … peace process a real achievement.”
John Rentoul: “Your panel is depressing apart from Charlie – disgraceful for the BBC to bandy the words ‘war criminal’ - despicable – Tony Blair stood against war criminals.”
Challenged by Beckett on the “lie” of WMD, 45 minutes as the basis for going into Iraq John Rentoul dismissed Beckett’s popular and populist misconceptions. Well dismissed.
The small-minded, cynical and frankly outrageous Beckett then said on the donation to the Royal British Legion of four and a half million pounds – “giving money to charity is a way of avoiding taxes.”
“Getting really bored with the persistence with which people pursue their anti-Blair propaganda, steadfastly refusing to see any good in the man.” – AND – “Tony Blair was the greatest Prime Minister since Winston Churchill and the only regret I have he didn’t get my vote as I live in Canada.”
Abdel Bari Atwan: “That’s the problem in the west here. You always blame the victims.”
Laugh? I could have cried
The reason for my laughter and tears? Abdel Bari Atwan, the editor-in-chief of al-Quds al-Arabi[more about Mr Atwan and his paper here, below]
This remark, THIS, is on BBC TV in self-flagellation Britain where anyone who DARES to question anything … ANYTHING to do with Islam is shunned as a pariah and pushed outside the building to fume away on their little ownsome [for instance Geert Wilders; and the English Defence League.]
On Dateline London we hear the views of “Foreign correspondents currently posted to London.” They “look at events in the UK through outsiders’ eyes, and at how the issues of the week are being tackled around the world.”
Quite where TWO of yesterday’s commenters, Brown and Atwan fit the “foreign correspondents” label, is beyond me. They are both, purportedly, British and both based here in jolly old London.
That aside, they DO sometimes fill up the spots with British journalists after all, some of the time this programme is reasonably interesting. Most of the time its left-wing bias is unbalanced as well as downright misleading, operating as it does thanks to BBC licence payers’ money, and using often anti-British Britishers far too often for my liking. But this anti-establishment position is par for the BBC Establishment’s course, as many of us have noticed. For instance, see here – ‘Dateline, 5 to 1 commenters from the Left’
Yesterday’s programme participants were – Abdel Bari Atwan,Yasmin Alibhai Brown, Thomas Kieling and Michael Goldfarb. They discussed three topics:
1. The Middle East peace process about to restart this week;
2. The ecomic situation, given that the USA is experiencing a fallback and Britain an unforeseen bounce-back, and Germany is motoring steadily, never having fallen back much in the first place;
3. Tony Blair.
The first individual to air his (mostly pessimistic) views was also the last – the aforementioned laughter-and-tears-inducing ABDEL BARI ATWAN. I am not sure if that is quite balancing the programme. But who am I to question the wisdom (or agenda) of the Beeb?
But just as it wound up, I literally gasped out loud – VERY loud.
Not because Abdel Bari Atwan, editor of the widely banned (in the Arab world) Al-Quds (printed in London – where else?) described Tony Blair as a “criminal” and was warned by Esler that said criminal’s wife was a top barrister, and that he’d better belt up. We’re all used to that zeitgeist.
Not because Atwan seemed to have NO conception of the idea that a new democracy such as Iraq might have some responsibility for its present lack of government, and not Bush or Blair who both left the power scene some time ago. (See around 24 mins on video)
Not because Atwan’s denial state meant he somehow missed the videos of the REAL criminal behaviour on board the “fiasco of the bloody flotilla” or because he used journo-simplistic, semi-ignorant soundbites like “Gaza war crimes.”
Not because Atwan uses our freedom and liberal values to publish a paper in the centre of London AGAINST the west’s freedom and liberal values and appears frequently on the Beeb as a bonus for doing so.
Nor even because he is a copper-bottomed nincompoop that I would not invite to participate in a car boot sale in case he’d likely upset the organisers.
Because, quite simply, Mr Bari Atwan, or ‘Bari’ to his colleagues on the programme, wound up with this:
“That’s the problem in the west here. You always blame the victims.”
Three of the five in the studio, including Gavin Esler, actually laughed at this obvious nonsense. But Yasmin A Brown applauded her fellow-spirit! Esler, to his credit, responded in a raised, somewhat bewildered tone, “Seriously? Well, right” - (thinking, no doubt – we always blame Blair, Bush and ourselves.)
By saying we always blame the victims Atwan meant, presumably, those victims on his side. Those whose leaders’ controlling mindset is full of nothing but peace and love towards all mankind. Those who wouldn’t recognise a jihad threat or their hand in it or a terrorist outrage or their hand in it if they celebrated it daily, which many of them do.
SO WHY DID I LAUGH?
I realise that many readers will probably think Mr Atwan was right to say this, IF he was only referring to innocent people. That, while inarguable, is not the point.
I laughed because his remarks rang some recent bells for me. If you think he might be right, you have NOT heard the other side of the argument. This inversion of language, blaming the victim, is exactly how Islamist jihadists operate. Pots, kettle, black.
The last ten minutes of the programme (from around 19 mins) were about, whisper it, Tony Blair. Red rag to a bull time for many of our over-exposed on the meeja so-called intelligentsia.
So, prompted by the release of his memoirs next Wednesday and the widespread furore by his enemies over his magnanimous donation of the book’s entire proceeds to the Royal British Legion the judges and jury on Dateline, or at least 2 of the 4 of them, fell back into their usual attack mode.
Blair had supported Bush in Iraq – he lied – he has no contrition over the deaths - he is making money … et-bloody-stupid- cetera.
Some extracts
Esler: “The former Prime Minister Tony Blair remains an international superstar, loathed by some people respected by others. Now he has published his memoirs and is offering a donation [all proceeds, in fact, roughly FOUR AND A HALF MILLION POUNDS but we'll let that little detail pass, Mr E] to the Royal British Legion which cares for those which are affected by war. What is the real Blair legacy?”
Thomas Kieling: “I’m a bit leery about this envy phenomenon … Blair was famous about David Beckham – “as rich as he wants to” …why is the country not allowing him to do as much as he can?”
Brown: “Because he was wrong then and he’s wrong now. Simple.” [Laughter, not necessarily laughing WITH her] from other guests)….
Esler: “But isn’t the real point about Blair that whatever you think about his financial arrangements, the Iraq war… he’s a huge political figure, who was very, very succesful, made it safe for many people to vote Labour and won three elections in a row?”
Abdel Bari Atwan: … “Ok, he is clever because of the deceptions because he managed to deceive all of us.” [STOP insulting the real British people, halfwit Atwan!]
Keiling: “deceived three times?”
Goldfarb: “The only chapter I want to read … “I was wong about my relationship with George Bush and I should have stood have stood up firmer about three minutes after we took Baghdad and the looting began … it will ruin his reputation in history and I’m sure that that matters to him, and, two it will take decades to wash away.”
Atwan: “… Tony Blair shared the responsibility for that. So we shouldn’t say he can make money as he likes because you know this man … this man is a criminal…and what amazed me he is welcome in the Arab world.” (22 mins)
Esler: “Mr Blair’s wife is a very highly paid lawyer and calling him a criminal is possibly not the thing …”
Brown: “Two things he did well. He broke the hold of the Tories in this country … and second the Northern Ireland … he followed through … but where he will never recover in the estimation of most of the world … is that he went to war on a false prospectus and he still doesn’t show any contrition. He didn’t show it during Chilcot and what kind of faith has this man got that he never looks inside?”
Kieling: “I wonder how you can be so sure talking about history and Blair… I mean Iraq, we don’t know the outcome … but eventually one may see a stable government.”
Atwan: “Iraq, after seven years of Blair/Bush invasion [what? ONLY Blair & Bush?] until now there is no government, no electricity, no water actually … [all lies, of course]
Goldfarb: “Bari there have been two elections, the last one is for real … for Iraqis… it is for the Iraqis …”
Atwan: “It is the Iraqis now who are responsible … that’s the problem in the west here, you always blame the victims.”
Esler: “Seriously?”
_____
A quick resume of their positions and political positions:
Yasmin Alibhai Brown, of The Independent sounded VERY pro-Hamas, though did not mention Israel’s “right to exist” as being of any importance, as another panel member reminded her. Also, on the Economy - “you (Germany) never followed the manic ago-saxon model – AND – “in the US the right is gathered like hyenas around Obama.” She was once pro-Labour, but voted Lib Dem in the general election, and is now disappointed. Ahhh. Sweetheart.
Thomas Kielinger, Die Welt was by far the most balanced of the panel. He suggested that the MEP talks might put pressure on the uninvited guest, Hamas if there is a semblance of unity. The only one with real empathy for Blair.
Michael Goldfarb Globalpost.com, said he wanted Blair’s book to explain WHY he hadn’t insisted to Bush that immediately after the Iraq invasion they hadn’t stopped the looting [Oh, FGS! And that is analysis?! That ambivalent approach to Iraq won't please his chums - Brown & Adnan.]
Abdel Bari Atwan said he was pessimistic about the upcoming MEP talks, and that they were only a ploy to justify any coming war against Iran and Lebanon, Hezbollah and Hamas. You can see who the Left, Guardian Cif types follow, can’t you? Atwan seems to have another agenda, apart from being anti-Blair and anti-the Iraq war.
Yasmin Alibhai Brown is BAD enough to put up with, but this guy had me in a state of almost paralysed apoplexy. I seldom feel this numbstruck. And I’m generally calm and restrained while listening to others’ opinions. Honestly. I AM!
That bug-eyed loon Abdel Bari Atwan was back on ‘Dateline: London‘ (12.30, BBC News 24) today. Thankfully, for once, his unpleasant ravings were countered by a wise head, that of Iranian-born Nazenin Ansari. …
The Secret History of Al-Qaeda, by Abdel Bari Atwan
A Country of Words, Atwan’s memoir, was published 25 September 2008 by Saqi books [ISBN 978-0-86356-621-9]. It traces his remarkable journey from the Gazan refugee camps where he was born and raised, to a highly successful London-based career as an international journalist, author and broadcaster. Taking in stints as a factory worker in Jordan, a student in Cairo and a journalist in Libya, the memoir also documents Atwan’s meetings with remarkable people such as Osama bin Laden, Yasser Arafat and Margaret Thatcher.
‘Atwan is an engaged, descriptive writer; but he does not seem inclined to reflect theoretically on what he writes. Since he sympathizes with his family’s political views, one expects his sympathy to be more developed, in that he does not offer insights as to how the Palestinians’ inside and outside views of the conflict and the solution to it can be bridged. The book is an invaluable narrative from a familiar and eminent Palestinian media figure, but it lacks the reflective subtlety of a scholar.’
_______________
ABDEL AL-BARI ATWAN’S PAPER, AL-QUDS
1. Criticism of Abd Al-Bari Atwan, the Gaza-born, immigrant British citizen:
‘A frequent commentator in both Western and Arab Media, Atwan has been accused of masking his extremism to Western audiences.
Following an October 2003 article in which Atwan claimed that the U.S. is to blame for the Arab world’s hatred of it, a Yemenite journalist and columnist for the London Arabic-language daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, Munir Al-Mawari, stated: “The Abd Al-Bari Atwan [appearing] on CNN is completely different from the Abd Al-Bari Atwan on the Al-Jazeera network or in his Al-Quds Al-Arabi daily. On CNN, Atwan speaks solemnly and with total composure, presenting rational and balanced views. This is in complete contrast with his fuming appearances on Al-Jazeera and in Al-Quds Al-Arabi, in which he whips up the emotions of multitudes of viewers and readers.”[12]
In response to Atwan’s legitimization of the Mercaz HaRav shooting in March 2008, Lior Ben-Dor, a spokesman at the Israeli Embassy in London, said: “The problem is that when addressing the British public, he tends to hide his true opinions and ideology – his support for terror and the murder of civilians. This article reveals Atwan’s real colors, a supporter of fundamentalism and terror, and hence he should be treated accordingly.”[9]
__________
It’s good to know that conspiracy theorist Atwan & our present prime minister David Cameron agree on at least one thing. Their description of Gaza as “a concentration camp” (see around 1 minute in this video on GG’s beloved (Iranian) Press TV with fellow-Gazan George Galloway. They make it clear where their loyalties are – “all Hamas now”, since the Arab world, and in particular “the Egyptians are collaborators.”
Although, to be fair, to Mr Atwan – his concentration camp” description was in January 2009, and the Israeli bombing . David Cameron’s was a month ago.
This newspaper was the first, or among the first[citation needed], to publish a number of communiqués threatening, and taking responsibility for, Islamist and terrorist violence. Those include the fatāwā of Osama bin Laden and several statements from the person or people who sign themselves the Abu Hafs al-Masri Brigades. Talking about Iran’s nuclear capability on ANB Lebanese television on June 27, Abd Al-Bari Atwan, editor-in-chief of Al-Quds Al-Arabi, encountered stern criticism when he said, “If the Iranian missiles strike Israel, by Allah, I will go to Trafalgar Square and dance with delight.”[1][2][3]
Marc Lynch of Foreign Policy called Al-Quds Al-Arabi “the most populist / ‘rejection camp’ of the major Arab papers.”[4] (Wikipedia)
_______________
Click to buy this book at Amazon. It's an eye-opener
I’m presently reading Melanie Phillips’ The World Turned Upside Down. I cannot begin to do it justice here in one short post. But I will be including some extracts in a new post, when time permits.
It might explain WHY I laughed out loud at Mr Al-Qud.
“Getting really bored with the persistence with which people pursue their anti-Blair propaganda, steadfastly refusing to see any good in the man.” – AND – “Tony Blair was the greatest Prime Minister since Winston Churchill and the only regret I have he didn’t get my vote as I live in Canada.”
Stop the stealth jihad. Petitions against the Ground Zero mosque http://www….
With four and a quarter million views, as I write, Pat Condell seems to be saying what most, if not all of our western politicians are too terrified to say, Geert Wilders excepted. More on him below.
________________
Cordoba Mosque, Mezquita, Spain. Click for source information.
The trailer to the new documentary from PRB Films.
Geert Wilders lives with a constant death threat over his head. Al-Qaeda has vowed to kill him. As a Dutch parliamentarian and outspoken critic of radical Islam, Mr. Wilders must travel with four bodyguards and sleep in a safe house, each and every night.
His short documentary film, Fitna set off a firestorm in the Middle East and Western Europe immediately upon its release. The controversial film showed how Islamic terrorists are following the literal dictations of the Quran.
That message can be seen here in this DVD, with striking clarity in film, photographs and a special message from Geert Wilders himself, who came to America with an urgent and terrifying warning: “Islam is on the verge of conquering the West.”
“Getting really bored with the persistence with which people pursue their anti-Blair propaganda, steadfastly refusing to see any good in the man.” – AND – “Tony Blair was the greatest Prime Minister since Winston Churchill and the only regret I have he didn’t get my vote as I live in Canada.”
A recent comment from an Albanian, Mr Leonard Dedej from Tirana – “It takes big leaders to make the hardest turns in peoples life…mr Blair is a big leader and a great man for millions of people in Balkans!!!for stopping a savage war!about Iraq I believe that the press wherever it is has not the right to judge on this issue because it simply is to small to judge!!history will judge mr Blair!as long as it is an ongoing war no one can blame mr Blair,after all he started something for a big reason..the press its often wrong because it fights for audience!!!”
Abbas at the funeral of Al-Hindi (Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, Aug. 19, 2010)
Excerpt:
After Amin Al-Hindi, one of the senior planners of the terror operation, died this week, the Palestinian Authority glorified him and his terror attack. The official PA daily described his participation in the Olympic massacre, saying he was “one of the stars who sparkled… at the sports stadium in Munich.” The attack itself was referred to as “just one of many shining stations” in his life.
The PA daily reports that Chairman Mahmoud Abbas and Prime Minister Salam Fayyad were at the funeral, where “a red carpet was laid out for the arrival of the body, and the military band played the final farewell melody.”
And from Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, via PalWatch :
“Everyone knows that Amin Al-Hindi was one of the stars who sparkled at one of the stormiest points on the international level – the operation that was carried out at the [Olympics] sports stadium in Munich, Germany, in 1972. That was just one of many shining stations.”
[Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, Aug. 20,2010]
What to make of this? Realpolitik, or evidence of a deep-seated, ongoing mindset?
Abbas and Fayyad are both often praised by Tony Blair for their steps towards a settlement in the Israel/Palestine issue. Whether or not their hearts were in the spirit of this funeral we will likely never know. But it’s worth noting, particularly if you are one of those who leans only in one direction with your sympathy and empathy.
Middle East Quartet Representative Tony Blair met with Abbas a few days after Al-Hindi's funeral, to talk on future negotiations.
Some might suggest – if ever we needed evidence of the enormous gap between what we in the west think “starlike” compared to our friends in the Middle East, this is it.
Retain this in your memory files. We might find we need it some day.
The following is the transcript from the official PA daily Al-Hayat Al-Jadida [my bolding]:
“‘We don’t accept the statement [of Hamas]: a [Palestinian] state of resistance and refusal. What we hear from everyone is that the basis is negotiations, at a time that the entire world agrees about this, despite the absence of other options, we either have negotiations or no negotiations, what has put Israel in the corner.
We are unable to confront Israel militarily, and this point was discussed at the Arab League Summit in March in Sirt (Libya). There I turned to the Arab States and I said: ‘If you want war, and if all of you will fight Israel, we are in favor. But the Palestinians will not fight alone because they don’t have the ability to do it.’ He [Abbas] said: ‘The West Bank was completely destroyed and we will not agree that it will be destroyed again,’ in addition to ‘the inability to confront Israel militarily.’”
[Al-Hayat Al-Jadida (Fatah), July 6, 2010]
“Getting really bored with the persistence with which people pursue their anti-Blair propaganda, steadfastly refusing to see any good in the man.” – AND – “Tony Blair was the greatest Prime Minister since Winston Churchill and the only regret I have he didn’t get my vote as I live in Canada.”
David Aaronovitch’s article on The Madness of the Anti-Blair Mob’s blind bias
I suppose we’re not supposed to use the below. It was published in The Australian, and I’ve used it in its entirety from there. The Times can try suing The Australian as my “source” and then me, if they must. I promise I’ll send them every penny I get for writing this blog. Empty envelope on its way.
I have added numbered referenced links to the article so that you can see what Mr Aaronovitch is referring to. But I’m sure you know already. Collective fundamentalist insanity of the mob. And we all know where that can lead.
FORMER British prime minister Tony Blair is to give the entire earnings from his imminent memoirs to a servicemen’s charity.
According to even the highest assessments of his richesse, the donation would amount to a quarter of his wealth. And this almost unprecedented act of top-person philanthropy is, in Britain circa 2010, to receive (as The Washington Post observed, bemused[1]) “a withering response”, in which the most common phrases have been “blood money” and “guilty conscience”.
It is like living in a madhouse.
The donation could have been reported fairly straight, with some commentary, including the views of critics. But that didn’t happen. If you go for reaction to the small group of Blair-blamers among families of fallen service personnel, you get your “blood money” headline. Cue an outbreak of Blair-hatred; of the Tonophobia that seems to dominate public discourse on both Right and Left.
Let me explore two effusions of this pathology. The first, an open letter to the British chain bookseller Waterstone’s, carrying the names of several leading novelists, a good composer and a bad artist, calling on the company to call off a planned book signing by Blair.[2]
The authors (as such people do) appropriated some 30 million-plus unasked citizens to their view when they argued that the signing would be “deeply offensive to most people in Britain” before adding that “we believe Waterstone’s will seriously harm its own reputation as a respectable bookseller by helping him to promote his book”. Ah yes, the scandal of the bookseller selling books. Deplorable.
This ludicrous epistle was also signed by Andrew Murray[3], a pro-Soviet supporter of people-starving, dissident-murdering, boat-sinking “People’s Korea”, the journalist John Pilger who, in 2004, backed the Iraqis killing British servicemen[4], saying that anti-war activists “could not afford to be choosy” about their friends, and Moazzam Begg[5], the Islamist who thought Taliban-ruled Afghanistan such a paradise that he took his daughters to live there.[6]
But these people – ridiculous almost beyond parody – nevertheless were close to the tone of other reactions to Blair’s gift. Nearly everyone making a comment felt entitled to sit inside the former PM‘s head and second-guess his real motives for a donation. It was his conscience, maybe his priest suggested it, it was spin, it was an attempt to retrieve his reputation (doomed, naturally), it was anything but what he said it was.
Ah, opined many, if he were genuine he would have kept the donation private. Think about it. Would he be asked where the pound stg. 4.6 million ($8m) went? Yes. If he said he’d given it away but refused to say where, the result would have been a firestorm of speculation that he’d kept it or donated it to his own foundation. In fact, when in office, Blair made unpublicised visits to military hospitals and was – predictably – criticised for not going.
So to my second effusion. It really doesn’t matter who it was, but a right-of-centre newspaper carried an editorial – the considered opinion of the editor and his staff – that said this about the gift: “Whatever may have driven (Blair) to it, however, one truth is inescapable: for once in his lying, war-mongering, money-grubbing career, the former prime minister has done something decent.”[7]
This goes well beyond invective. It is the expression of a collective craziness. Shall we mention the Northern Ireland peace process? [8] Was that not “decent”? Or British intervention in Sierra Leone, [9] which stopped the arm and leg choppers from continuing their literal butchery. Why are so many Kosovan kids named “Tonibler”?[10] Was it war-mongering to go into Afghanistan in 2001?[11] Was it immoral and grubby to start up the Commission for Africa[12] and commit Britain to substantial help for that continent?[13] And I have made no attempt to list the various ways people’s lives improved in Britain during the Blair premiership. None of this whatsoever, is to be allowed to the credit of the former prime minister. It is madness.
In some ways Blair-hatred echoes the often irrational loathing that many felt for Margaret Thatcher. It wasn’t enough that she destroyed industry, cut back “vital services” – she had to be responsible for the breakdown of family, community and any other social trend that one disliked. She even had her own David Kelly-type conspiracy theory, being accused – in effect – of presiding over the murder of an elderly anti-nuclear activist, Hilda Murrell, in 1984. I know people whose loathing of Mrs Thatcher defined the public part of their lives.
But this thing with Blair is worse. The Iron Lady was far from friendless and maintained her influential Amen Corner on the Right; there would always be someone vociferous who loved her. Although 500 military personnel were killed on service under Mrs T in Northern Ireland and the Falklands, no one worried about her conscience and whether she gave money to the Royal British Legion. Blair, uniquely, attracts the intense hostility of both Right and Left.
Yet hold on there. Earlier, “most people in Britain” were lazily invoked by a bunch of ideological alien abductees, so what do “most people” think about Blair? A friend at the market research company Ipsos/MORI reminded me of what the British people, when polled in 2006 and 2007, said about TB. Between 1998 and 2006 those who thought Britain had become “a better place to live” went up from 40 per cent to 60 per cent.
On Mr Blair’s departure, 43 per cent believed that the country was worse because of Blair, 46 per cent thought it was better. In their own lives, 35 per cent thought things were worse, 46 per cent that they were better.
Where in God’s name is that balance reflected in public discourse? Criticism – vehement criticism even – is one thing. The obliteration of any reasonable discussion of Tony Blair is another. Bewildering.
2. From Iain Dale’s blog. Interview with the perfectly “hinged” and certainly not villainous journo Matthew Parris. Excerpt:
Hero? Peter Wildblood. The journalist convicted in the Montagu, trials who wrote the first book about being gay that has ever been written in the English language. Finally, villain? (laughs) Tony Blair. I thought you may say that.
Parris might also have thanked Tony Blair as he did in his even better hinged and less villainous days. Parris said way back then that BLAIR’S government WAS TO THANK FOR THE RIGHTS NOW TAKEN FOR GRANTED BY HOMOSEXUALS (LIKE PARRIS HIMSELF.)
He might have mentioned this, but he hasn’t. Instead it’s a man few of us have heard of who is the Parris hero!
Some time ago I was looking for an article he wrote on this, Times, I think. It is nowhere to be found online these days – “Why I Love Blair’s Britain.” Done a bunk. As if by magic. Like Parris’s pre-equality for gays days. (If you have a copy, please let me know. ) I suppose Mr Parris has seen the light since then. The light at the end of the Political World Without the “bit unhinged” Tony Blair.
‘Do they, along with their comrades inured in Afghanistan and Iraq, not deserve rehabilitation?
The debate surrounding Blair’s donation now threatens to overshadow the vital work being carried out by British Armed Forces abroad. In his last appearance in the House of Commons before stepping down as Prime Minister, Tony Blair told the House:
“I believe that they [the British Armed Forces] are fighting for the security of this country and the wider world against people who would destroy our way of life. But whatever view people take of my decisions, I think that there is only one view to take of them: they are the bravest and the best”.
Blair was right; and whatever the debate surrounding his decisions, we should not lose sight of that.’
Two recent comments: “Getting really bored with the persistence with which people pursue their anti-Blair propaganda, steadfastly refusing to see any good in the man.” – AND – “Tony Blair was the greatest Prime Minister since Winston Churchill and the only regret I have he didn’t get my vote as I live in Canada.”
Update: I have added Tony Blair‘s entire speech (below here) as at his website. Read it, please. Especially you, my ol’ mate Peter. It is persuasively and forcefully argued. Not aggressively so.
Tony Blair Speaks on the De-legitimization of Israel
Former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair, now Envoy of the Quartet on the Middle East, was the keynote speaker of the August 24 symposium entitled “The De-legitimization of Israel: Threats, Challenges and Responses” organized by The Lauder School of Government, Diplomacy and Strategy at IDC Herziliya in cooperation with the Office of the Leader of the Opposition. Catch the first few minutes with some rough footage taken by Jewish Journal’s Orit Arfa. Read about his remarks here: http://www.jewishjournal.com/bloggish…
‘He proposed five steps to combating the de-legitimization Israel.
First: “The aim is not to make people agree with Israel’s point of view but to insist that they listen to it and persuade them at least to a point of understanding.”
Second: “Israel has to be staunch and unremitting actor for peace.“ The restart of negotiations next month is a positive step and “shows there is a simple and sincere yearning on part of people of Israel to live an enduring and honorable peace with their neighbors.”
He acknowledged cynicism about the peace process, but believes “if Israel can receive real and effective guarantees about its security, it’s willing and ready to conclude negotiations for a Palestinian state.”
Third: Negotiations must include discussions of final stages. “Proposals on this issue will be a litmus test to seriousness.”
Fourth: While taking into account legitimate security concerns, Israel must do what it can to improve quickly the daily life of the Palestinians.
“No top down negotiations will work without it.”
Fifth: “It is our collective duty, yours and mine to argue vigorously against the de-legitimization of Israel. It is also our collective duty to arm ourselves with an argument and narrative we can defend and with which we can answer the case made against Israel with pride and confidence.”’
It won’t make him many friends in certain quarters, namely those who already KNOW that Israel is an illegitimate entity. But their argument leads nowhere. Israel is NOT about to disappear. Nor is Balir about to turn on the west’s long-term ally in the Middle East.
The noises off from the deniers is all the more reason he is right to say what he is now saying, accusations of bias or not. And it is all the more reason the balanced among us should use his speech:
There are two forms of de-legitimisation. One is traditional, obvious and from the quarters it emanates, expected. It is easier to deal with. This is attack from those who openly question Israel’s right to exist. It is easier to deal with, because it is so clear. When the President of Iran says he wants Israel wiped off the face of the map, we all know where we are. This is not to minimise the threat of course. It remains and is profound. It is just to say that were this the only form of de-legitimisation, it wouldn’t warrant a conference of analysis; simply a course of action.
The other form is more insidious, harder to spot, harder to anticipate and harder to deal with, because many of those engaging in it, will fiercely deny they are doing so. It is this form that is in danger of growing, and whose impact is potentially highly threatening, in part because it isn’t obvious.
I would define in it this way: it is a conscious or often unconscious resistance, sometimes bordering on refusal, to accept Israel has a legitimate point of view. Note that I say refusal to accept Israel has a legitimate point of view. I’m not saying refusal to agree with it. People are perfectly entitled to agree or not; but rather an unwillingness to listen to the other side, to acknowledge that Israel has a point, to embrace the notion that this is a complex matter that requires understanding of the other way of looking at it.
The challenge is that this often does not come from ill-intentioned people; but well-intentioned. They would dispute vigorously such a characterisation of their mindset. They would point to the injustice of Palestinian suffering, acts of the Israeli Government or army which are unjustifiable and they would say, rightly, that you cannot say that to criticise Israel is to de-legitimise it. Such minds are often to be found in the west. They will say they advocate a two state solution and they will point to that as proof positive that they accept Israel’s existence fully.
The problem is that though this is true in theory, in practice they wear Nelson’s eye patch when they lift the telescope of scrutiny to the Israeli case. In a very real sense, they don’t see it.
So, for example, on Gaza they won’t accept that Israel might have a right to search vessels bringing cargo into Gaza, given that even this year over 100 rockets have been fired from that territory into Israel Leave aside the multiple investigations relating to the flotilla, upon which there will naturally be heated debate. I mean a refusal to accept that, however handled, no Israeli government could be indifferent to the possibility of weapons and missiles being brought into Gaza.
I often have a conversation about the West Bank which goes like this. Someone says: Israel must lift the occupation. I reply: I agree but it has to be sure that when it does so, there will be security and a Palestinian force capable of preventing terrorism. They say: so you’re supporting occupation. I say: I’m not: I’m simply pointing out that if Hamas, with an unchanged position on Israel, were running the West Bank, Israel would have a perfectly legitimate right to be concerned about it’s security.
A constant conversation I have with some, by no means all, of my European colleagues is to argue to them: don’t apply rules to the Government of Israel that you would never dream of applying to your own country. In any of our nations, if there were people firing rockets, committing acts of terrorism and living next door to us, our public opinion would go crazy. And any political leader who took the line that we shouldn’t get too excited about it, wouldn’t last long as a political leader. This is a democracy. Israel lost 1000 citizens to terrorism in the intifada. That equates in UK population terms to 10,000. I remember the bomb attacks from Republican terrorism in the 1970’s. There weren’t many arguing for a policy of phlegmatic calm.
So the issue of de-legitimisation is not simply about an overt denial of the State of Israel. It is the application of prejudice in not allowing that Israel has a point of view that should be listened to.
One thing I state repeatedly in interviews about Gaza – despite disagreeing with the previous policy on it – is to say to western media outlets: just at least comprehend why Israel feels as it does. In 2005 it got out of Gaza i.e. ceased occupying it, took over 7000 settlers with it and in return got rockets and terror attacks. Now I know all the counter-arguments about the unilateral nature of the withdrawal, the 2005 Access and Movement agreement and the closure of the crossings. But the fact remains: there is another point of view and you can’t describe it as illegitimate.
This is then hugely heightened by the way things are reported. Here the televisual images – whether in Lebanon, Gaza or indeed any field of conflict – in Afghanistan for example, are so shocking that they tend to overwhelm debate about how or why conflict began. Because Israel – like the US or the UK – has superior force and because in such situations the horrible tragedy is that the innocent die – these images arouse anger, sympathy and a disgust that at one level is completely understandable but at another obscures the difficult choices nations like ours face, when they come under attack.
The combination of all of this is curious disjunction of perception. I spend large amounts of time in Israel, and outside of it in different parts of the world. To those outside, Israel is regularly perceived as arrogant, overbearing and aggressive. To Israelis, there is a sense that the world is isolating it unfairly and perversely refusing to see they too have a right to have their voice heard. Hence this conference.
The issue is how to respond. First, there is a clear and vital principle that needs to be established: to criticise is not per se to de-legitimise. The fact is there are plenty of Israeli and Jewish voices that passionately disagree with Israeli policy. I am a friend of Israel and openly avow it. I have plenty of criticisms. De-legitimisation is qualitatively different. It can seem the same sometimes. But it isn’t. The one is valid. The other is not. Friends of Israel should be the first to make the distinction.
Having done that, however, we should highlight the fact that de-legitimisation is happening, and be vigilant and vigorous about identifying and countering the instances of it. This needn’t be done stridently. But it should be done insistently. The aim: not to make people agree necessarily with Israel’s point of view; but to insist they listen to it and persuade them at least to the position of understanding. Where there is incitement, expose it. Where there is a one-sided account, argue the other side. Always have a voice out there – and not just the politicians – but the voices of the people. And do it systematically and with unity.
Second, Israel should always be a staunch and unremitting advocate and actor for peace. What I mean by this is not that it should simply be for peace; it should advocate it and act to achieve it. Tzipi Livni’s and Ehud Olmert’s negotiations under the previous Israeli Government and previous US administration, were an immensely important part of showing to the world that whatever else they might say, they had to accept that the Government of Israel was genuinely trying to bring about peace. The re-start of the direct negotiations to be launched next week is important in itself; important because it shows that PM Netanyahu on behalf of the new Government of Israel is an advocate for peace; important because, with a l year time frame being indicated, it shows that there is a sincere yearning on the part of the people of Israel to live in an enduring and honourable peace with their Palestinian neighbours. I know some are cynical. I know some say it’s all for show. I reject that view. I think if Israel can receive real and effective guarantees about its security, then it is willing and ready to include a negotiation for a viable, independent Palestinian state. This is a brave decision by the PM and the right one.
Third, there will be no successful negotiation unless all the final status issues are on the table. I’m not going to try to negotiate solutions here and now. That is for later. We can think creatively and constructively. Indeed we must do so. But proposals on these issues will be a litmus test of seriousness.
Which brings me to a fourth point. A crucial response to de-legitimisation is to deal with the legitimate criticism. What is it? Let me answer based on my experience. It is that we can and should do more and more quickly to improve the daily lives of Palestinians. Now there has been real progress here in the past year. We should deepen it. I am a convinced persuader for the bottom up approach – I continue to believe that no top-down negotiation will work without it. I also think we have visible empirical evidence to support it: the improvements in Jenin and the opening of the Jalameh crossing to Israeli Arabs; changes to A & M in response to the hugely improved capability of the PA on security; the very successful PIC in Bethlehem that yielded hundreds of millions of dollars of investment; the modus operandi with the new department under DPM Shalom that has resulted in significant gains; and I hope in time a new approach to tourism and to development for Palestinians in Area C.
Such change does not only lead to improvements to Palestinian lives. It also deals with what is the most potent fuel – especially in Arab media – of hatred against Israel. That is the idea that Palestinians suffer not injustice alone; but a form of humiliation. Dignity is a very important concept. Consistent with security, Israel should be constantly looking for ways to compensate for the indignity which inevitably results from the security measures taken and should seek to avoid any unnecessary indignities.
I was pleased and heartened when the Government changed policy on Gaza. The truth is you can justify restrictions in Gaza taken for reasons of security. But with a Gazan population, half of whom is under the age of 18 and 300,000 of whom are under the age of 4, security is the only arguable basis upon which to put such restrictions. Of course Gilad Shalit should be released immediately. His detention is a profound denial of human rights, as is the way he is being treated. But a policy based on threats to Israel’s security is the only one its friends can defend.
This leads me to my final point. It is our collective duty – yours and mine – to argue vigorously against the de-legitimisation of Israel. It is also our collective duty to arm ourselves with an argument and a narrative we can defend and with which we can answer the case against Israel, with pride and confidence.
Let me tell you why I am a passionate believer in Israel. This is a democracy. It’s Parliament is vibrant. Its politics is, well, not notably restrained, let’s say. Its press is free. Its people have rights and they are enforced. I had an argument with a friend about Israel. I said to them: ‘ok let’s assume you are charged with a crime you didn’t commit and the penalty is 20 years in prison. And you’re a critic of the Government. Tell me: under which country’s legal system, in this region, would you prefer to be tried?’ He struggled for a bit and then said: ‘that’s not the point.’ ‘But it is’ I replied.
Look around the world about what we admire about the Jewish people: their contribution to art, culture, literature, music, business and philanthropy. It’s a spirit that is identifiable, open and rather wonderful. Whatever bigotry is, it is the opposite of it. It is a free spirit. On holiday I read the new biography of Einstein. Having in early life taken not much interest in the issue, he became an ardent supporter of Israel. But look at the character of the Israel he supported: like Einstein himself – a free thinker, a rebellious thinker even, but one supremely attuned to the future.
That is the Israel people like me support. So guard it; keep it. I am a religious person myself. But the society I want to live in, is one that treats me no better as a result; makes my view one amongst many; and pursues science, technology and progress with vigour and without prejudice. The best answer to the de-legitimisation of Israel lies in the character of Israel itself and in the openness, fair-mindedness and creativity of ordinary Israelis. That character and those people built the State of Israel. They remain it’s guardians. They are why to de-legitimise Israel is not only an affront to Israelis but to all who share the values of a free human spirit.
Defense Minister Ehud Barak said Israel and the Palestinians would have to make brave decisions as part of the direct negotiations slated to be launched next week.
In a meeting with Quartet Middle East envoy Tony Blair, Barak expressed hope that “the other side will find the internal powers to move ahead with talks.” (Roni Sofer)
“Getting really bored with the persistence with which people pursue their anti-Blair propaganda, steadfastly refusing to see any good in the man.” – AND – “Tony Blair was the greatest Prime Minister since Winston Churchill and the only regret I have he didn’t get my vote as I live in Canada.”
List of Clickable Links – Pages/Video/Audio/External Sites
This list is alphabetical. Browse down the lists to search for an item.
Or click through to a 'popular page' on the topic where it is likely to be found. All video/audio/articles etc will also be found at the appropriate page or post.
Putting a search item into the search box will bring up one or more pages which include your search item.
Should the USA, Britain & the rest of the western world seriously consider Sharia Finance, in view of the present financial worries?
There is concern that such is the state of collapse of western capitalism that SOME of our leaders may even be considering adopting "Sharia Finance".
It already exists in the west in various forms and is presently being marketed heavily to non-Muslims.
Is this a slippery slope to Sharia Law?
Sharia law and now Sharia finance are touted by its proponents as the answers to the "evils" of the west.
I don't want ANYTHING Sharia in my country - Britain. And I am not happy that there are already FIVE Sharia courts in our land. I don't recall the government asking us to vote for this in 1997, 2001 or 2005.
But two months after Mr Brown took over from Mr Blair in 2007 Sharia courts were set up in English cities. Perhaps Mr Brown thought he had received subliminal permission from the people to do this when he took over from Mr Blair in a subliminal non-election.
What do YOU think?
VOTE NOW for or against Sharia Finance for the West
ARE YOU SITTING COMFORTABLY? THEN HE’LL BEGIN
Hammer and Tongs poised, ferals!
