Blog

The Observer today has a two-page spread looking at the question of Blair’s current position, and his future as PM. Naturally the opinions of some weighty members of the intelligentsia are sought. These are people who are better able than the rest of us to articulate these things; they make their livings, after all, by their use of words, and being, you know, highly intelligent, their opinions are bound to be enlightening.

Anyway, Douglas Hurd is an obvious choice, as a man who spent the last part of his political career desperately trying to avoid hindering in any way at all Milosevic’s ethnic cleansing. So, a man with bags of moral credibility, who unsurprisingly thinks Blair should go: “I think for his own good he ought to step down.” Which probably sums up what a lot of Bosnians would have said about Hurd.

Next up, Bob Worcester, of MORI. “Blair bet the store on weapons of mass destruction. He told us that in 45 minutes we could all be dead – and now that turns out not to have been true.” Well I don’t remember Blair saying that, but clearly the chairman of MORI must know better.

Julia Langdon “political journalist and broadcaster” suggests that Blair has lost his credibility: “he has shown himself to be a man who responds to situations rather than acting on principle…. Blair has shown himself to be a rather wibbly-wobbly person.” Well there you go again: I’d have said that the exact opposite was true, at least as regards Iraq, considering how blindingly obvious it’s been that Blair has been consistent throughout, and has been clearly acting on principle.

But the last word must go to Claire Tomalin. An obvious person to consult really, considering her expertise on, um, Samuel Pepys, and Jane Austen. Claire puts her finger on the problem with her customary skill: “Blair’s position has been very very damaged by the situation in Iraq and being yoked to George Bush. Bush is a dreadful, dreadful figure, and a dreadful politician.” Yes, there’s the genuine voice of the London literati, cutting through all the crap about UN resolutions and the history of Saddam’s regime: Bush is just “dreadful, dreadful”.

The pictures of US forces humiliating Iraqi prisoners are of course a public relations disaster, and inexcusable even though, as David Aaronovitch points out, far worse crimes are committed on a regular basis by other Arab regimes:

The editor-in-chief of al Jazeera, Ahmed al-Sheik predicted – surely correctly – that the photographs would cause immense trouble. On Newsnight he claimed that the scenes were ‘humiliating not only to the Iraqis, but to every Arab citizen around the world’. And yet, as H[uman R[ights] W[atch] suggests, it wasn’t a necessary outcome of fighting a war in Iraq.

Yet there are some other hard facts to contemplate. The most obvious is that much worse torture has been – and in some cases still is – used by countries with whom we have good relations and whose human rights abuses never make it to the front page. And the editor-in-chief of al Jazeera may like to contemplate that much of this happens in Arab countries, as well as in Israel.

I could find nothing on al-Jazeera’s English website, for example, covering the story, carried in the Guardian on Thursday, that the head of the Iranian judiciary has just issued an order banning the use of torture in Iranian prisons. Amnesty recently took up the case of Arzhang Davoodi, ‘who has been imprisoned, tortured and denied medical treatment after he talked to a Channel 4 Dispatches television team last year’. The team was making a documentary about the death in custody of an Iranian woman journalist.

Torture of dissidents has been routine in Tunisia, where al-Jazeera does not maintain an office. Just two months ago, HRW reported: ‘The Egyptian government continues to arrest and routinely torture men suspected of consensual homosexual conduct.’ The report contained testimonies of torture victims who were tied up, suspended in painful positions, burnt with cigarettes, submerged in ice-cold water, and given electric shocks to arms, legs and genitals.

And I haven’t even mentioned Saudi Arabia, Syria or what goes in in the cellars of various militias, from Lebanon to Afghanistan. There is some selective horror being expressed here. It is unconvincing, to say the least, to complain that there is something particularly horrible about non-Arabs treating Arabs badly, if little is said about Arabs treating other Arabs even worse.

But it is precisely the Arabs who do complain about their own governments who are so undermined by our failures. One Arab democrat recently told a Bush official: ‘Every dictator in the region is pointing to America’s example [over Guantanamo] as an excuse to crack down on dissent.’

If, last week, someone had put it to me: okay, coalition forces have been a year now in Iraq: do you think that there have been cases where they’ve behaved brutally, where they’ve gone beyond acceptable norms of military behaviour? I’d have said yeah, given what people are like, especially given the stresses that soldiers operate under, I would imagine that has happened. Soldiers aren’t any better than the rest of us. What I would not have expected was that they’d be so stupid as to record it all on video, and then let the pictures be published. What were they thinking? What were their commanding officers thinking? Didn’t anyone say: hey, pictures of Iraqis being humiliated – perhaps we should, you know, destroy them. The chilling thought here is that this sort of behaviour was so commonplace that nobody considered there might be a problem.

As for the Mirror’s supposed revelations about British brutality, I would want to see some independent corroboration. Piers Morgan isn’t exactly Mr. Integrity, and has run a strongly anti-war campaign. Let’s hope we get the truth soon, one way or another.

Zeyad at Healing Iraq on Al-Jazeera:

What is with this worldwide Zionist imperialist conspiracy against Al-Jazeera station? I fail to comprehend it. Is it because it dares to speak the ‘truth’? You should know that the ‘truth’ hurts.

Is it because it dares to ‘twist’ the facts just a little bit in order to please and satisfy the raging Arab masses? You should know by now that Arabs are fond of rhetoric and of being cast in the role of victims.
Is it because of its highly successful coverage of the US war against Iraq? You should know that Al-Sahaf was right and that there was not one tank in Baghdad on April 9.

Is it because of its exclusive privileges to air videotapes and messages from every criminal and sick organisation in the Arab and Muslim world? You should be proud of Al-Jazeera’s cosy relationship with terrorists.

Is it because it keeps complaining about the US occupation of Iraq while not mentioning a single word about US bases in Qatar (the very country it is broadcasting from) and other Arab countries? You should know that Arab regimes are always right.

Is it because of its self-describing motto which says ‘Opinion, and the other opinion’ which is never ever the case? Is it because it claims to be objective and unbiased when it clearly refers to thugs and criminals in Iraq as ‘resistance fighters’?

Very sharp and very funny: the latest episode in Bad News Hughes’ Diary of Indignities.

HonestReporting has an interesting communique on the way that media coverage, by focusing on the old stereotype of Palestinian rage, is missing out on what’s actually happening:

[W]hile the media are obsessed with Arab emotion, an entirely rational process has been taking place on the Arab street:

● The IDF anti-terror policy is working: Israel’s stepped-up campaign against terrorist leaders since early 2003 has resulted in a 50-percent decrease in the number of Israeli terror victims. Palestinian deaths have likewise decreased significantly.

● Terror groups are in disarray, their leaders in hiding: Senior Hamas official Ismail Haniyeh told a reporter this week, ‘Hamas might have a crisis on its hands after losing its leaders.’ Another terror leader said people are ‘unaware of the limitations and amount of pressure imposed against the Palestinian combatants.’ And as opposed to Rantisi’s bravado (“I prefer to die by Apache”), Hamas’ new leader is afraid to reveal his identity or location.

● Palestinian leaders are getting the message: Yassir Arafat today expelled 21 Fatah fugitives from safe haven in his compound. And after the Yassin strike, 60 Palestinian leaders urged restraint in a prominent newspaper ad, arguing that the suicide bombings have backfired and calling for ‘a peaceful, wise intifada.’

It seems that the stereotype of Arabs as ‘rash’ and ’emotional’ ― as opposed to ‘calculating’ and ‘rational’ Westerners ― is coloring media coverage of this conflict. This is a variation on the ‘soft bigotry of low expectations’ that excuses the lack of Palestinian democracy by presuming Palestinians are incapable of reform.

aq war, and I know this because I was in that case in the minority. One doesn’t have to be an “old hand” to detect the signs of a conscience collective or, if one doesn’t care for it, a “herd mentality.”

It’s now fairly obvious that those who cover Iraq have placed their bets on a fiasco or “quagmire” and that this conclusion shows in the fiber and detail of their writing.

While looking through the latest Private Eye, and wondering whether it’s still worth buying, I was pleasantly surprised to see their lead letter this issue (not online):

Sir, I am a UK citizen of Iraqi origin and have been a keen reader of Private Eye for many years. I have supported the war on Iraq as it was the only option available for removing the dictatorship in Iraq. I have been in Iraq recently after 21 years of exile and can assure you that despite all difficulties, the majority of Iraqis are happy with the change in Iraq, oppose the violence of the insurgents and feel optimistic about the future of Iraq.

I note with regret that you keep attacking Bush and Blair regarding the war in Iraq despite the fact that the coalition forces, supported by so many countries, are doing their best to help establish democracy in Iraq. You even had space to publish alleged corruption by the INC but you never seem to bother mentioning anything about the dark forces of Muqtada Al-Sadr, the former regime agents and the Al-Qaeda agents who have already caused huge suffering in Iraq and who intend to turn the country back to the days of tyranny.

More importantly, you never mention anything about the negative rule of most of the Arab media, particularly Al-Jazeera, and their direct colluding with the insurgents. This was clearly evident in recent pictures of kidnapping of foreign hostages. I find this surprising from a satirical paper which keeps a watchful eye on what other media outlets publish.

This doesn’t mention the diplomats, with their don’t-rock-the-boat mentality, but Mark Steyn provides an excellent answer to their concerns: “Mideast instability? Bring it on”

In the summer of 2002, Amr Moussa, secretary-general of the Arab League, issued a stern warning to the BBC: a US invasion of Iraq would “threaten the whole stability of the Middle East.” As I wrote at the time, “He’s missing the point: that’s the reason it’s such a great idea.”

vid Hawk, a well-known human rights researcher and author of the report. “Beyond a starvation diet, torture, beatings and inhumane living and working conditions, this regime practices a form of collective punishment where three generations of family members are given life-terms along with the family member charged with political crimes.” […] This practice can be explained by a 1972 statement by “Great Leader” Kim Il Sung, who said, “Factionalists or enemies of class, whoever they are, their seed must be eliminated through three generations.”

But hey, this “US Committee for Human Rights in North Korea” is a probably a CIA front. Another chorus of “We Shall Overcome”, anyone?

e going to run out of mosques for them? Eventually, but one of our Kings once decreed that every Saudi in the land should have a mosque near enough for him to be able to walk to. “That’s every fifty meters”, quipped a very rude Western expat I once knew. And no, I don’t despise all Imams. I have been inspired by some very holy, learned and wise ones. However, none was a graduate of this place.)

So how do the students make a few Riyals in their spare time? Not serving in Fudruckers or a coffee shop, not real work, that’s for sure. You guessed it, they are our censors! Yes, these wheezy-chested, acne-pitted, dentally-challenged, long-bearded apologies for manhood are the ones who decide what I may or may not see. Even though I was already married and embarked on my career when they were still noisily filling their diapers with waste material and foul odors. All their spare time is obviously taken up with poring thru the world’s press, drooling into their beards, shuddering with delight at the sight of Mrs. Bush’s ankle, and then obliterating it with a scribble of the Magic Marker.

Some of the things they do are ludicrous. I was once reading a UK paper when I noticed that a quarter of a page was missing. Checking back to the table of contents, I worked out that it was a report on a speech by Jack Straw, the UK Foreign Minister. Now to the best of my knowledge, Jack Straw does not give speeches wearing a skimpy little cocktail dress that reveals far too much of his legs and bosom. So why was it cut out? I checked the internet news to find out, the speech was about Zimbabwe and Southern Africa. Was it because he’s possibly Jewish? I still have no idea, but if I ever meet the student who did that, I’ll roll up his Spiderman comic and insert it thru his nearest sphincter.