You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Tony Blair’ tag.
This is cross posted by Tom Wilson, and originally published at The Jerusalem Post.
When Iranians stormed the British embassy in Tehran, it was reported that they had burned the British flag, yet the truth is that they actually burned the Israeli and American flags along with the British one. This should have told observers something.
It should have alerted them to the ideology at work there, an ideology that singles out Western democracies less for what they do and more because of what they are and what they represent in the world. And, just as the British media has so often gotten it wrong on Israel’s attempts to defend its civilians, so too this error of judgment seems to extend to Britain’s own international efforts.
Seeing members of a mob brandishing a portrait of England’s Queen Elizabeth II as they stormed her embassy in Tehran, with the Iranian police initially appearing pretty impassive, you would have thought it would be clear to the British media which side they ought to be on. After all, with the Iranian parliament having voted to downgrade diplomatic relations to the sound of some of its members chanting “death to Britain,” many suspected that the ‘student’ riot was anything but spontaneous and, indeed, far from independent of the Iranian authorities’ influence.
Yet for some, this was not an occasion to rally to Britain’s defense, but rather to chastise its government for its policy on Iran and its nuclear program. A flurry of opinion pieces appeared, mostly in the liberal press, arguing that Britain had brought this on itself through its harsh dealings with Iranian Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s regime. This reaction, however, only reveals the extent to which some commentators in the West refuse to recognize that people in other cultures also have agency in their actions, that they are not simply reactive to our alleged geopolitical mismanagements.
In one opinion piece for The Guardian, former British Minister of State Mark Malloch-Brown argued that Britain had acted as a “ringleader of efforts to squeeze Iran” and, as such, has made itself an American proxy in the eyes of the Iranians, a cardinal sin in the view of Britain’s liberal circles.
The Independent’s Middle East editor Robert Fisk went further still, arguing the case that the recent sanctions are just a small part of a long history of reasons “that makes Iranians hate the UK.” Fisk has dismissed former Bristh prime minister Tony Blair and British governments for “raving” about “the necessity of standing up to Iranian aggression” and what he calls “the supposedly terrorist nature of the Iranian government”. These commentators seem to possess short memories, choosing to ignore the Iranian kidnapping of three British naval personnel in 2007.
Perhaps none of this should surprise us since the IAEA report was published last month, which provided the clearest evidence yet that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons, sections of the British media rushed to Iran’s defense, either calling into doubt Iran’s activities or warning that all intervention, military or otherwise, would be futile and damaging.
Predictably these writers tended to chastise Israel and the US for allegedly risking an escalation in the situation and a leading article by The Independent went so far as to allege that “America’s Jewish voters” were driving US policy on Iran. More startling still was British journalist Simon Jenkins’ Guardian piece in which he coldly stated that “No one seriously supposes that Iran, under whatever ruler, would seek to wipe out Israel – and anyway that is Israel’s business”.
All of this appears to indicate a stark failing in moral judgment on the part of sections of Britain’s media. The automatic assumption seems to be one of an irredeemable West committing unceasing aggression against the ever innocent developing world. Ultimately, it has been the very same people who fail to recognize the values that the Jewish State stands for who have similarly proved unable to maintain any kind of moral clarity when it comes representing the dealings of liberal and democratic Britain with the belligerent and terror sponsoring Islamic republic.
The writer is a researcher and analyst at the Institute for Middle Eastern Democracy where he heads the Centre Transatlantic Affairs project. Tom currently lives in London where he is completing a Doctorate at UCL.
This week I read with interest the Hansard report of a recent debate in the British Parliament on the subject of anti-Semitism. One of the many pertinent subjects raised was that of the prevention of the spread of racial hatred via the internet and newspapers which those MPs taking part rightly consider to be an important priority. Hopefully, the Right Honourable John Mann (one of an increasingly rare breed of politicians who really do live up to the prefix) and his colleagues will be able to make speedy headway on this subject. But, until then, I suspect that we will have to put up with many more articles such as the one by Ian Williams which appeared on CiF on January 21st.
Leaving aside the article’s subject matter (Williams wants Obama to ‘call Israeli settlements illegal’, but of course does not trouble himself with the question ‘and then what?’), it is interesting and revealing to examine the methods Williams uses to persuade the reader to accept his case.
First, he sets out his disputable quasi-legal case according to which all settlements are illegal, with no nuance, no mention of alternative legal opinions and with wilful disregard of history. The point is, of course, to try to make it seem as though the ‘decent’ world thinks as one and Israelis are out of step with that ‘decent’ world.
Secondly, he establishes an identikit image of Israelis by assigning them stereotypical traits. They show ‘defiance’ even in the face of American bribes and can be likened to common criminals.
“It is as if you have caught someone stealing your car and the police decide to overlook technical issues like the law and ownership and instead tell you to negotiate with the thief to get occasional access to the back seat.”
Next, Williams goes on to invoke the age-old anti-Semitic trope of Jewish power in the form of the omnipotent ‘Israel lobby’.
“Of course, Obama has other problems, such as the economy and healthcare, and on the Middle East must face not only a rabidly pro-Israeli Republican party but also a majority of his own party that would sign up to a resolution declaring the moon to be made of blue cheese if the Israeli lobby demanded it.”
‘Rabidly pro-Israeli’ has very interesting connotations, implying both irrational and unusual behavior which presents a danger (it is common practice to put down rabid animals because of the threat they present to humans) and also the fact that such behavior is the result of infection by an outside force – a pathogen.
Julian Assange (Wikileaks founder)
The egregious hubris of journalists in liberal, democratic societies was on full display in Simon Jenkins column in CiF, in the very title of the piece:
“US embassy cables: The job of the media is not to protect the powerful from embarrassment: It is for governments – not journalists – to guard public secrets, and there is no national jeopardy in WikiLeaks’ revelations.”
In that brief headline, and subtitle, we have, in short, a journalistic ethos that is both narcissistic as it is adolescent – demonstrating a media elite who don’t allow themselves to be burdened with such quaint notions as citizenship and responsibility. Whether or not such leaks – classified diplomatic communications from U.S. diplomats abroad – harms national security or endangers lives are questions the likes of Jenkins clearly are not burdened with.
Notably, the Guardian just released a video commentary on the Wikileaks affair – which includes comments from Guardian editors and correspondents. Especially relevant were the comments from Jonathan Powell, former Chief of Staff of Tony Blair, who said: “there may of course be in those [wikileaks] telegrams be [sic] revelations that do actually endanger lives….so I think there is a risk to people’s lives in those telegrams.”
Jenkins and the Guardian (as well as La Monde, El Pais and The New York Times) are, after all, doing what a proper liberal pedigree commands them to do: “Comforting the afflicted, and afflicting the comfortable.”
Jenkins asserted the following early in his essay:
“Anything said or done in the name of a democracy is, prima facie, of public interest. When that democracy purports to be “world policeman” – an assumption that runs ghostlike through these cables – that interest is global.”
No, Mr. Jenkins, not everything said or done in the name of democracy is of public interest. In the real world, free, democratic nations are engaged in serious battles (militarily and diplomatically) with very real enemies – closed totalitarian regimes (like Iran, N. Korea, Syria, and China) – who, by their very nature don’t have to worry about their own state secrets being revealed, and can (and do) use such asymmetry to their advantage.
It is sad that journalists such as Jenkins likely would snicker at the notion that patriotism should play a role in their decision-making. However, while responsible journalists in democratic nations should rightly view their job as investigating, and reporting on, the truth in all matters relating to the public interest, such an admittedly noble ideal must also, at the end of the day, be balanced with their responsibilities as citizens of the country in which they live. It’s not called “selling out.” Its called being a responsible adult.
U.S. Senator Joe Lieberman quite eloquently summed up the Wikileak controversy when he said:
“To keep our country safe, some information must be kept secret. This is a balancing act that the American people themselves ultimately control through our democratically elected representatives and our institutions. What Wikileaks is doing is to short-circuit this entire democratic process – claiming for itself the exclusive, unilateral, and unchecked power to decide what should and shouldn’t be made public. This is therefore not only an attack on our national security, but an offense against our democracy and the principle of transparency.”
I couldn’t agree more.
What are your thoughts?
The following speech was given by Quartet Representative Tony Blair at the Plaza Hotel, New York where he was awarded the 2010 Scholar-Staesman Award by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy:
The warnings of past days of terrorist attacks in Europe remind us the security threat is still very much with us.
The extremism remains alive. We see it in the bombs in Baghdad or Kabul, but also in terrorist acts in Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, Kashmir, Chechnya; across swathes of the Middle East and beyond. The past ten years have seen 150,000 die in the Mindanao dispute in the Philippines.
The policy choices from 9/11 onwards were and are immensely difficult. Eventually they come down to: Do we confront this extremist ideology in order to change it; or do we manage it and hope, in time, it changes itself? I still find this judgement hard to make. On balance, however, I don’t believe that it can be benignly managed out of existence. Its roots are too deep, its narrative too pervasive.
I believe we need a revolution in our thinking. I do not think it is possible to defeat the extremism without defeating the narrative that nurtures it.
And there’s the rub. The practitioners of extremism are small in number. The adherents of the narrative stretch far broader into parts of mainstream thinking.
What is the narrative? It is that Islam is basically oppressed by the West; disrespected and treated unfairly; that the military action we took post 9/11 was against countries because they are Muslim; and that in the Middle East we ignore the injustice done to the Palestinians in our desire to support Israel, because the Palestinians are Muslims, and the Israelis Jews.
It is a narrative that now has vast numbers of assembled websites, blogs and organisations. Of course many of those that agree with it abhor the terrorism. But as the support across the Middle East for the Muslim Brotherhood shows, far too many buy into far too much of the analysis of the extremists, if not their methodology.
Rt. Hon.Tony Blair, Herzliya Forum for Diplomacy, Lauder School of Government, 24 August 2010.
On 24 August 2010, Rt. Hon.Tony Blair delivered the keynote address at the distinguished Herzliya Forum for Diplomacy, a foreign policy forum for heads of state and other leaders, at the Lauder School of Diplomacy, Strategy, and Government at IDC-Herzliya, Israel. In his speech, Blair identified the two primary forms of de-legitimization that Israel faces throughout the world and put forth five steps to counter this de-legitimization. Blair argued that
The “traditional” and “insidious” forms of de-legitimization are the two forms of de-legitimization that Israel faces. The “traditional” de-legitimization of Israel “is [an] attack from those who openly question Israel’s right to exist. It is easier to deal with, because it is so clear.” The “insidious” form, on the other hand, “is a conscious or often unconscious resistance, sometimes bordering on refusal, to accept Israel has a legitimate point of view.” This form is “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.”
Below are a few more notable quotes from Blair’s address at the Lauder School:
On his support for Israel:
1. “This is a democracy. Its 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.”
2. “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.”
3. “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.”
4, “Don’t apply rules to the Government of Israel that you would never dream of applying to your own country.”
Here’s a comment from the recent Avi Shlaim thread from another gentle sandal wearing Guardian reader.
I do hope that someone in the Guardian had the good sense to report this to the police.
Hawkeye
Omar2
WellofSense
Medusa
The Alchemist
Louise
Tosca
Maimon
Telling the Truth
Israelinurse
Adam Levick
Margie in Tel Aviv
Guest/Cross Post
Hadar Sela
CiF commenter suggests Tony Blair should be killed: 68 ‘Recommends’ & NOT deleted by CiF Moderators
December 31, 2011 in Comments which are off-topic, ad hominem, racist, vulgar or include threats of violence will be deleted | Tags: anti-Zionism, Biased Moderation, Comment is Free, Community standards, Guardian, Islamism, Sunny Hundal, Tony Blair | by Adam Levick | 30 comments
One of CiF Watch’s signature posts is “Why was this deleted” and, alternately, “Why wasn’t this deleted”?
We spend quite a bit of time monitoring comments beneath the line at ‘Comment is Free’ observing what precisely runs afoul of their “community standards”, and have documented scores of examples of pro-Israel comments being deleted, while some of the most hateful anti-Zionist vitriol remains.
Beyond the narrow issue of deleted comments, however, there are some commenters whose apostasy has rendered them in a state of pre-moderation – where CiF Moderators review, and then release, on a case by case basis, only those comments deemed acceptable.
The last strike for unruly CiF commenters is to have their user privileges permanently suspended due to an especially egregious violation, or pattern of violations, of their norms.
We recently documented two cases in which such a ban was employed – one commenter for merely questioning whether an essay by Sunny Hundal was consistent with Guardian editorial guidelines, and another for simply asking CiF Moderators why his/her comments, noting the Islamist (pro-Muslim Brotherhood) sympathies of CiF contributor, Wajahat Ali, were being deleted.
While the latter example seemingly demonstrates that the Guardian is not about to have their consistent licensing of pro-Islamist voices – who espouse views they evidently deem consistent with “liberal” thought – questioned, the former suggests an institution which is, at the very least, remarkably thin-skinned.
In light of this propensity by CiF Moderators to ban users for content they deem offensive, the following comment, beneath the line of Ranj Alaaldin‘s CiF essay on Dec. 22, “Iraq must divide to survive“, which has not been deleted, nor resulted in the commenter being banned, is especially curious.
Is there any question this commenter is referring to Tony Blair? And, further, is there any doubt that the commenter using the moniker “ChanceyGardener” is suggesting that Blair be killed?
Here are a few CiF standards, from their ‘Community standards and guidelines‘ page, which would seem relevant when assessing comments calling for murder:
So, the suggestion that a former British Prime Minister should be executed: “divisive”, “threatening”, or “toxic”?
You think?!
Related articles
Share this: