The Glass Box for Wednesday
The Glass Box is the place where you can comment on what you heard on PM, interact with other listeners and get responses from the people who make the programme.
Just click on the "comment" link.
The Glass Box is named after the booth outside the PM studio where we all discuss the programme at 18.00 every weeknight. We try to be honest and constructive. Sometimes there is criticism, and the criticised get a chance to explain themselves.
The people who make PM will read the comments posted, and will sometimes respond.
If you want to post a comment about something that is on your mind but was not on the programme - use the link on the right to The Furrowed Brow. Also on the right, you'll find FAQ: try it. And why not visit The Beach?
RSS feed
Email us
Listen to PM
I think the ±«Óătv owes a duty to us Listeners to tell us the truth about the lawlessness in Gaza. Not just in the last few months but the whole sordid time of corruption going back years.
Alan Johnson should now be given free rein to say just how much he knew, in particular if he was aware of the obvious planning behind their "putsch" by Hamas.
Up to now the ±«Óătv has been very backward in its coverage of gangsterism in Gaza.
Now, by all means shoot me for being curmudgeonly ... but surely a lack of tennis at Wimbledon today should mean a lack of non-tennis non-coverage on PM?
To her credit, Dot Davies did a smashing job of filling her allotted acres of airtime with jolly sounding non-news.
Fifi
I'd love to go to the Furrowed Brow, but the link on the right takes me to last week's.
Marc?
Enjoying the body language thing about Brown and Cameron.
Dot does well to fend off Eddie's sarcasm.
But on Gaza, obviously there is more to this than we have been told.
Alan Johnson's comment about the kidnappers being the group he feared most, tell us a lot. This group was not being reported about. Perhaps by a deliberate act of Not reporting about them. I felt the coverage was quite even on alans release though.
The body language bit was superb, and Vanuatu as well. They should shoot foreigners on sight, but they haven't enough agression to save themselves. Sad.
xx
ed
Presidents, French or otherwise, should always beware of partaking of macho activity in front of the press. Fine when it works, but I don't think Jimmy Carter's reputation ever recovered when he collapsed in front of the world's press while out jogging.
As for this evening's programme I could have done without the body language piece. One story about PMQs would have been enough and my preference on radio is always for people who are good on radio - Simon Hoggart and Mathew Parris always are. Body language being essentially visual the piece would have made a lot more sense on TV.
Glad to hear all the coverage about Alan Johnston, family and colleagues.
Perhaps you could do a follow up about what kind of support and publicity is given to other hostages and their families, as you did for the case of missing children.
With no ill-will to Alan Johnston or his family and without doubting the sincerity of all those who have held vigils and supported Mr Johnston in other ways, should not the editors of ±«Óătv News - a public service broadcaster famed for its impartiality - consider whether the same amount of airtime - and not just at the beginning and the end but on an ongoing basis - should be given to all those who are being held against their will?
In support of Anne P. @ 4:
I think Alan Johnston was reported as having covered the stories of 27 abductions in Gaza whilst he was there -- might it be an idea for PM to give a recap on each of them, and tell us whether they have been freed, or killed, or are still in captivity, and what is known about each case? Maybe not all at once, but before Alan's release has been dropped from the front pages, maybe starting with the ones who are known to be dead all in one item, as it were, and then two or three "this person was freed after x days and is now doing [whatever he or she is now doing]" and "this person is still being held" each day for a while, so that we don't forget, in the euphoria over Alan, that he wasn't the only one? I suspect he'd rather like that, and it would be a suitable tribute to him as well.
[Lacking a new Furrowed Brow, I am putting this here because I know the team do read the Glass Box]
Peter Bolt (1)
I fully agree with what you say. The ±«Óătv must now be less biased in it's reporting both on foreign and domestic affairs. In my opinion this would enhance their audience and give a more balanced view on sites like this.
Fifi (2) I think PM was right to report on a big ladies' match which took place today - for tennis fans, that was big news. PM was also right to report the strong feelings of many who criticise the organisers for not arranging for matches to be played on Sunday.
Gerry (9),
"give a more balanced view on sites like this"
I'm all for balance, but you have to admit that it's hard to balance the less than fifty folk held by Palestinians against the thousands held by the Israelis.
xx
ed
Gerry @ 9 (at the moment)
I am always interested by the assumptions of bias not on the ±«Óătv but in this site (or in "sites like this", but this is the one I know).
Over the time I have been coming here, the main thing that I have noticed has been that in general, there is a core group of articulate, courteous and amusing posters who contribute on a wide variety of topics, and who do not by any means agree on all points and sometimes have to "agree to differ" or simply stop discussing some things. When they disagree, they do so without personal abuse or insult.
Whenever more than two of them agree about some particular matters, or there appears to be consensus on some controversial subject among the majority of the "familiar names", there is a sudden outburst of accusations of being a clique following "the ±«Óătv line", and of inarticulate, incoherent, and often abusive posts from a small group of unfamiliar people who otherwise don't appear, and who only post on a very limited number of subjects or even on only one.
This is not to suggest that you, or Peter Bolt, are in the latter category of posters: I have absolutely no reason to think so, particularly since both of you have put forward your opinions in a reasoned manner and right at the beginning of a thread, before there has been much discussion posted. I am just pointing out the pattern that I have noticed, and wondering what it is about this site that leads you to feel that it lacks "balance". I would really like to hear about your views on balance in this context: how can it be reached, if the individual regular posters here, thinking as individuals, happen to have a broad agreement on one side or the other of a particular matter? If for example they were unanimous in condemning child abuse, ought a contrary view to be expressed, and if so, by whom? That's extreme, obviously, but where does the boundary lie between "anybody who isn't a pervert must agree about question X" and "there are things to be said on both sides of question Y, and equal space ought to be devoted to both sides"? Who is to decide, and how is it to be enforced, or encouraged?
This is a serious question, and one I would like to see explored a bit. Anyone? I addressed this to Gerry, but s/he is not the only person who has had views on this before now.
Frances O @ 3 - sorted!
Re Chris (12), I would offer one or two, perhaps random, thoughts that occurred to me as I read.
The reference to a putative person in favour of paedophilia is reminiscent to me of the story of the bishop. When asked what he thought about sin, he replied: "I'm against it". In my eyes that is neither an extreme nor an unbalanced view but rather of the "Well he would say that, wouldn't he" variety. Similarly I don't look for perfect balance here any more than on the programme. Both programme and blog are a reflection of the people involved, their views and their prejudices and I see nothing strange in that.
Balance is rather like a see-saw. When achieved, it is at best temporary and fragile but nevertheless always desirable. How does one achieve it on a consistent basis? Possibly by taking a pragmatic and empirical stance on the issues of the day and by avoiding moral judgements when morals (ethics) are not involved.
Chris, I am not sure what you are suggesting. 'In my opinion it sounds a little restrictive. I don't see any requirements on the ±«Óătv home page which suggests that in order to comment on one particular subject others should be included as a matter of course.
I have followed these blogs over the last 6 weeks, reading them without contributing because, to be quite honest I have been dismayed by the aggressive response some comments have attracted, particularly when the thread has touched on the Middle East or Downing Street. Pressumably the posters you describe as 'inarticulate, incoherent and often abusive posts'.
tony ferney @ 14: If I'm right, what you're saying is that one can have moderation, or unextremeness, without having to include views from all sides of the spectrum? I may have been being silly in not expressing that as a possibility: thank you. It does seem slightly as if in the case of scales (like the ones Justice holds) there has to be something on each side for them not to tip over and spill the contents all over the place, but riding a bicycle in a well-balanced way doesn't need one to have a bucket full of opposed opinions on each handlebar. Perhaps the frog is more like someone bicycling, and less like a blindfolded lady, in this respect. (Does a French President ride a bicycle to keep himself balanced? Oooh-er, there's a thought to conjure with!)
Gerry @ 15, and also thanks to you, because you could so easily have taken offence and you haven't. (Asking questions can so easily be taken as sarcastic or something, and it isn't when it's me: I ask because I want to know, not because I already do know and want to look clever.)
I wasn't trying to advocate or proscribe anything in particular! Honest, guv! I certainly wouldn't want to say that anyone who didn't have opinions on lots of things ought not to voice opinion on anything, nor any such, which I now realise on re-reading my post might have looked as if it were saying. Nor would I want people not to voice opinions they hold strongly, though perhaps I prefer it if they voice them in a moderate way...
What I really want is to get some reasoned argument about what would constitute balance and how it could be achieved, because most of the people who inveigh about a lack of balance do it in a way that frankly makes me think *they* are *unbalanced* (with thanks to Tony for pointing out that possible meaning of the word), or possibly unhinged. You being more moderate in your expression, I hoped for a "take" on the matter that I would find comprehensible. I think I'm some of the way towards it, but I still feel that perhaps I'm missing something vital. If lack of balance leads to such heat in some cases, it must be important, but I'm not sure quite what it is that constitutes that lack.
well just to return to tonight's program if I may, I could well have done without the body language segment. Is it really important whether GB or DC sat down at a particular moment or pointed their fingers aggressively or whatever? Anne P's right, it might be OK to plug a gap with this on TV where you can see the pictures. Radio doesn't have pictures so I feel you should interview people who have something to say worth listening to who can draw pictures with words, not people who rabbit on about nothing terribly important. It's not as though it was a discussion on policy is it.
Other stuff - am I the only person to find it odd that Alan Johnston spoke about two sentences to his family and was then 'cut off', but was able to be interviewed or give a press conference or whatever to the waiting media without any technical problems like being 'cut off'. Perhaps someone who understands these things could explain it to us.
Also on the AJ story there have been phrases which seem to infer that some sort of negotiations were going on and that the ±«Óătv knew a lot more than it was broadcasting about events surrounding the kidnapping, if not before, certainly during and after. I wonder if we are going to get a fuller story over the next few days.
None of these forgoing comments to be taken to mean that I am not 100% overjoyed that he is back safe and sound.
Chris. Regarding your last paragraph. Maybe if this site stood alone as a 'debating society' site your desire for in depth analyses would stand on most occassions. However, as a wide range of listeners of ±«Óătv radio 4 are invited to give an opinion on a wide variety of topics it could be that you interpret that 'balance' in the population as 'unbalanced' or possibly 'unhinged'. Especially, if you assume that everyone holds your point of view or forms their opinions based on academic theory.
I did enjoy PM last night - and for the first time in ages felt compelled to say so on the glass box. I enjoyed the piece about jogging politicians. Whilst some of the notions propounded by the French philosophers may seem a little laughable (that seemed to Alain de B's suggestion) I was hearted that philosophy can still make headlines and that there are philopsphers engaging with comtemporary, small scale, matters.
Coverage of Alan was likewise good, the protaganists were allowed to speak for themselves and I found the segment very touching.
Dot - also very good and seems to make more out a bad sports situation than you'd think possible!
As for the 'balance' debate - intriguing. I think people that frequently contribute to this blog do have very similar traits and opinions often seem to chime. Israel, evidently, does spark a huge amount of debate and can lead to a lot of troll-ish activity but on the whole I find that the minds on here are enquiring and generally open. Of coures the written word can be misconstrued and points that may have been quite innocuous when expressed verbally can be read as sarcastic, condescending or vitriolic when expressed in writing.
Ok - thats my lonish post for the month :)
Chris (12 & 16), When I see a post shouting about the contributors to this blog being in cahoots or similar, I ignore it -- it clearly isn't true and so I feel that it isn't worth responding to. Anyone who reads and/or contributes here regularly will be quite aware of that. I don't doubt your sincerity in trying to find a reasonned argument for such occasional cries, but my strong suspicion is that your tendency to think of the caller as imbalanced is correct. If you are at all interested in my unsolicited opinion, I would say ignore these people and devote your eloquent thoughtfulness to topics more worthy of your interest. But, of course, the decision is yours.
Thanks for all the comments on last night's programme. I am relatively new to PM, (having 'crossed the floor' from Today) and it's a really interesting new dimension having the programme analysed in such close detail on the blog. Do let us know your thoughts on the tennis -- too much sport or not enough? And hopefully the Alan Johnston euphoria wasn't too over the top, it was hard to resist yesterday.
admin annie (17) I don't know, but I imagine that Alan wanted to speak to his parents at the earliest opportunity, so used the first mobile phone that was offerred to him....and we all know how erratic they can be.
I suppose the subsequent interviews were conducted with more stable technology. I believe Alan spoke further with his family later in the day, presumably on a conventional telephone. A bit of his conversation with his sister was broadcast on the radio.
Chris et al.,
Justice uses her scales to detect imbalance, to determine where the injustice lies.
I made my mentions of prisoners held by the Israelis to reflect what I perceived as the unbalanced perceived view that kidnapping is only done by one side in this sad situation. In fact, on the day was taken, the IDF walked into Gaza (from which they had supposedly withdrawn), fully armed and kidnapped a civilian doctor and his brother.
They quite possibly continue to languish in an Israeli prison without charge. Such is Israeli "justice"
I'm sorry to be so exercised on these matters, but, to me, the scales are so blatantly unbalanced it makes me sick.
Turning a blind eye, or simply tolerating Israeli behaviour as "their business" is the worst kind of double standards, and even the ±«Óătv, accused of being 'anti-Israel' (falsely in my opinion) falls far short of full balance on such matters.
Again, my apologies if my obsession with justice and balance causes pain to anyone.
Salaam/Shalom
ed
And FULL MARKS to Hamas in this matter, whatever their supposedly cynical motives. I suspect that GAZA is far more stable now that they have sent the corrupt, self-serving Fatah lot packing.
Eloise;
Yoo-hoo!
Can you make it clear that you're a PM 'insider' when you post please? It's nice to be able to identify the staff from the rest of us. Then we know when we're seeing an official post/reply from the team.
Not a criticism, just a request. Peter Rippon's 'handle' as a Blogger is 'Peter Rippon PM Editor' for example.
I know that people have bitched about any sports coverage in the past. I welcome it, especially when the correspondent is as effervescent and enthusiastic as Dot Davies. Sport should be about fun and enjoyment, DD certainly conveys that, even during the rainy and intermittent Wimbledon we've endured so far.
If there is a major sports story, or an offbeat and silly minor sports story, then get it onto the show. In fact, get Dot to cover it in the same way that she does from SW19.
PM is a magazine programme, not a hard news slot. As such it needs the whimsical and daft to leaven the daily digest of politics, religion, war and death. It's the blend and the delivery that makes the programme what it is.
Si.
Thanks Eloise,
And, no the euphoria wasn't a bit overdone! Alan's beaming face says so much!
God bless you all!
xx
ed
Firstly welcome to the Frog Eloise, I hope you find it as useful as we Froggers do.
I thought the body language item was rather interesting. It was unusual and gave a different dimension to the analysis of the Brown/Cameron match-up. That said, I would want it to be overused.
I thought the coverage of AJ was very good, and you did well to resist understandable urges to go a bit over the top on the subject. However, I very much agree with other posts (both here and on other threads) that while the release of Alan is something to be celebrated, we should not forget the thousands of people taken against their will all over the World. Perhaps PM could do an analysis of kidnappings, outcomes, consequences, etc?
On the subject of balance; my experience - generally, not just here - is that people who hold very strong opinions/beliefs on certain subjects are usually the first to start talking or complaining about a lack of balance. What they actually mean is that they are not hearing opinions or beliefs that they agree with. That is not necessarily the same thing as a lack of balance. I have to say that I am usually satisfied with the "balance" in items on PM, I think the team does a good job in presenting the facts and then allowing people who hold strong opinions on the subject to come on air and express and debate them. But it's a tricky line to hold, and there is an occasional slip, though I don't see that as conclusive evidence of any institutional bias.
Gerry @ 18: I think I see what your point is -- I hope I do. I don't want to read only things that agree with a point of view I may already hold, though. That would be extremely dull, apart from anything else; it would also mean that nothing was ever communicated except a smug mutual approval among the agreeing folk, which would be bad all round.
It isn't the opinions being expressed that make me worry, because as you say this site invites all opinions, from anybody, and so it should do or what is the point of it? What I find difficult is that if the opinion on one side of a given topic is expressed in a moderate, what I think one might call a "debating", style, and the opinion on the other is expressed immoderately, in what one might call a "hectoring" style, the latter opinion is likely to be ignored or treated with contempt. (Rather as the shouting of a drunk in a pub is shrugged off.)
Aperitif @ 20 advocates ignoring the people who "shout" -- and it *wasn't* "unsolicited opinion", 'cos I did solicit opinions! -- and that's a great temptation, but doing so would be ignoring what are clearly strongly-held views that happen to be being expressed in an unpalatable or even objectionable way, and that would be wrong, I feel, and would leave the people who feel angry *more* angry because they felt they had been treated with contempt. (I am human, and if someone is rude to me I am likely to be rude back, but that doesn't mean their opinion is worthless, just that they are rude and I dislike it.)
The problem I am looking at in fact is how to manage to have a balanced (as in unextreme) conversation that is also balanced (as in having all viewpoints represented) without anybody who wants to participate feeling either "frozen out" or "shouted down". I've looked in on a fair few sites on the internong where it's unpleasant because the whole tone is confrontational and ugly, and so far this one doesn't have that tone; I am trying to find out both why and how they get that way, and how in an ideal world it can be avoided.
Thank you for your help. Not that I am in a position to *do* anything about this, apart perhaps from trying to keep my own temper under provocation, but information is never a bad thing to have.
Ed (23) "And FULL MARKS to Hamas in this matter, whatever their supposedly cynical motives. I suspect that GAZA is far more stable now that they have sent the corrupt, self-serving Fatah lot packing."
I am inclined to agree with you, but I have seen this cautionary note:
Only days after Hamas took over the Gaza Strip the fighting stopped and it was quiet. For its residents, the situation is still unclear: Some say they welcomed the quiet, while others are seeking to leave as soon as possible. One man said, “Nobody, not even during the Israeli occupation, ever forced us to leave our homes. My family has lived in Gaza for hundreds of years and they have turned me into a refugee.” (Haaretz, June 17)
On the subject of balance, it seems to me rather difficult to define. If there are two opposing views, give them equal opportunity, it seems. But if 90% of the population hold one view and 10% the opposite, has "Balance" been achieved? Then there is the potential problem of "Group-think" which can result in daft outcomes.
Regarding the programme (Oh, that), I was struck when Eddie referred to the Frog and said, "Right there." It sounded terribly like that Americanism "Right now."
Chris (27) Shouldn't we be exporting our ranal civilisation to those nasty blogs instead of worrying about how they got into their various messes?
Vyle (28),
Thanks for that. Point taken. Time will tell, but at least perhaps we'll stop making things worse by ignoring the democratically expressed will of the Palestinians. That result had more than a little to do with the failure of Fatah (for whatever reasons)
For a moment you were referring to the retentive nature of our civilisation ;-)
xx
ed
VH @ 28, it isn't that I want to make people anywhere else be nice to each other (nanny? MOI!?! Unsay that implication instantly, thou cream-faced loon! *Basket-hanger*!) I just want to find out how it happens, so that I can try to avoid causing it or failing to act against it happening *here*. When people start shouting, and talking about "vituperation", and being rude, I get edgy lest it be the humourless end of a nasty wedge of bile. Or something along those lines.
I did carefully wait until someone who couldn't possibly be thought to be being horrid had mentioned "balance" so that I could ask in a non-inflamed context.
Chris I would argue that it is most definately the opinion being expressed which receives the vitriol, that is why the contributor may react in the manner you dislike.
As for Hamas. I have to wonder why they waited so long to start negotiations on Alan Johnstone's behalf when they were already established in the area as a political force.
Gerry (@31), I am now hoping that Vyle recognises a brace of quotations from Shakespeare and Kipling in the jocular spirit in which they were intended! I have no evidence about Vyle's complexion, in fact, nor yet of any basket-hanging or church-restoring propensities.
Quite seriously, I'm not sure that an unpopular opinion expressed in a reasoned way *does* receive vitriol, here; it may be argued against, sometimes even with *enormous* scads of reiteration of points already posted, but it is rare for it to be made the butt of personal abuse or insult. It's more likely to get a casual 'good point' or 'fair argument' comment, followed by some sort of rebuttal or what the next poster regards as refutation... It's after that the trouble starts. It's almost as if there is an expectation that merely by saying something, as it might be, oh, 'Tony Blair found WMD in Iraq on his holiday there in 1998', that poster has said all that needs to be said and eveeryone else should now reply to the effect 'Yes, of course, you're right' and either shut up or come over to a completely different point of view from the one they had previously held. If someone instead says, 'But Tony Blair didn't *go* to Iraq in 1998, he went to Bogner', then the insults start to fly!
As for Hamas, hmmm. I don't know how long they took between ceasing to be in a state of minor war and starting to move for Alan Johnston's release. AJ himself seems to be suggesting that as soon as Hamas took over, his captors began to be edgy rather than "coasting along confidently" as they had been before. Presumably whoever in Hamas was doing this negotiating, threatening or whatever else was involved, had to make sure they were dealing with the right group and putting pressure in the right places. What was the time-lag involved between Hamas securing their own position, and AJ's release, do you happen to remember? 'Cos I'm not sure.
Chris With reference to your second paragraph. One example I have seen on here of how an unpopular opinion expressed does receive vitriol concerns a contributor under the heading 'terror threat'.
This contributor mentioned certain recent Polls which I myself have seen commented on in the Daily Telegraph. In fact Eddie Mair made reference to these Polls on Monday's edition of PM.
The response the contributor received was appalling and in my opinion intimidatory. Eventhough he supported his opinion with references to these Polls, they were dismissed out of hand and he seemed to be rounded on. Of course you have the right to argue against what I say. But, I think bullying or intimidation is based on how it is received. So I have to return to my original point regarding bias in the ±«Óătv which has received a large amount of publicity recently.
I do think you have a rather 'rosey' view of how some contributors are dealt with but that isn't unusual because you have been a core contributor on here for some time. I am offering this constructive critisism in the hope that it is acted on when necessary.
As for Hamas as they were a political and military force prior to the 'minor war' I wonder why they didn't intervene earlier in the case of AJ.
Chris,
I have 2 hanging baskets (+ 3 unfilled) and a penchant for cream, though it rarely spreads beyond my lips.
And
(a) I don't remember a word from Stalky & Co.
(b) negligible knowledge of Shakespeare.
(c) I never did FORTRAN; how could Ed I think that? COBOL, mate. And BASIC and unknown lingos like "CalC".
Vyle,
A profile I found had you with FORTRAN competence. I won't say more for fear of revealing the unscrambled name.
Gerry,
No need to be coy. Do you consider some of MY responses to have been intimidating? If so, I'm sorry if I sometimes respond 'with vigour', as I see it, when responding to vague references. I prefer to speak plainly and directly with reference to documentable material.
On the other hand, if you're worried that someone might intimidate me, fear not. ;-)
As to Hamas and intervention, we don't KNOW whether or not or when they began to 'intervene' in the matter of Alan's captivity. I seem to remember that most groups expressed condemnation from the outset, including Fatah.
I don't think there is particular bias in the ±«Óătv because it is perceived as biased by all sides from time to time. For example, I consider that far too often the 'received' view that Israel is a legitimate state is left un-challenged.
You probably have guessed that I challenge that legitimacy, especially since it is claimed through the UN (181), which has never been implemented, and since which Israel has disregarded almost all the obligations of UN membership.
Enough for now. Welcome aboard
Salaam/Shalom
ed
ED I,
Your sort of reading here!
Ed
The "vague reference" you refer to and that you disminssed out of hand are in fact Polls done on behalf of Channel 4 News and NOP which reflect some false notions amongst large parts of the Muslim community they include for example, that the Government was complicit in 7/7 bombings and that the attacks of 9/11 were a conspiracy between the United States and Israel.
I think the point is that these sorts of conspiracy theories need to be confronted and are indeed significant in how some members of the wider community do indeed react to the Muslim community.
There is little discussion of the role of Wahabism in fermenting radicalization, even the historical nature of anit-semitism and anti-westernism in some Muslim countries are not dealt with adequately within the ±«Óătv although, these issues are being covered in more detail in the media as a whole. When they are referred to on this site they are immediately dismissed.
My point is that there's a lot of middle ground to cover in this debate. In my opinion to always take the stance that cause and effect are set in stone is wrong and has nowhere to go.
Sure, I have read your views and while I may not agree with them I think to dismiss the views of people who attempt to introduce some evidence based thinking on the middle ground is shortsighted simply because at some point it is the middle ground which will win the day.
Thanks Ben! I didn't enjoy it, tough. ;-(
ed
06/07/2007 at 14:07:54 GMT
Gerry,
Thanks for that. I believe I asked for more specific references to the polls, and then it was me who searched them out and provided links to them as well as reading them.
I have in fact read so much of the history of Palestine in the last century and a half, that i'm sick with sorrow. As a result of all this reading I have come to the conclusion that the root cause of the troubles is in fact the presumptive Zionist goal.
The idea that the creation of a Jewish State would end antisemitism has proved completely wrong, and this was foreseen by the prominent in 1919.
I hold the position of Gush-Shalom as expressed in their leaflet "Truth against Truth" and its conclusions as the most reasonable path to peace. I commend it to you:
(aitchttps://)zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/channels/downloads/truth/Truth_Eng.pdf
and I also commend Jews for Justice:
(aitchttps://)www.cactus48.com/truth.html
In peace (all languages)
ed
Gerry (37),
I've checked back, and Harry wrote:
I don't call that dismissed out of hand, and think this illustrates that often any 'rudeness' or 'intimidation' is more a mis-perception on the part of the reader than intended by the writer.
The following discussion illustrated how different folk can read data such as that in the polls in quite different ways.
Salaam/Shalom
ed
Ed
I think the response you give is a good reason for seeking other forums which deal with current affairs.
Gerry,
I don't understand. I like it here.
xx
ed
Gerry, I think the "vague reference" business was not intended to suggest that the polls themselves were vague, but that a reference to them that gave no details about their content was a bit vague. Harry referred to them but gave no information about them, in the first place.
If you were told "Jim said something about that so it must be true", wouldn't it be reasonable for you to ask "who's Jim, and what did he actually say?" Similarly, "polls show this" does rather lead to the question "what polls, and what exactly do they show?"
Don't allow Ed's single-minded bloody reasonableness to goad you into going away, for goodness' sake! you're being interesting, drat it, and I want to learn where you are coming from.
You wrote: "I think the point is that these sorts of conspiracy theories need to be confronted and are indeed significant in how some members of the wider community do indeed react to the Muslim community." and I want to follow up on that. I agree that it would be grand if one actually *could* confront a conspiracy theory, but I don't know how to go about it. The problem is that it's like people who know they are Napoleon: it's a form of mania. One can't argue with it. Dodi's Da is never going to accept that Prince Philip didn't plot to murder his son, even if enquiries go on for a millennium. Any evidence that runs contrary to his belief he will dismiss as part of the Establishment Conspiracy.
How do we confront people's inconvenient beliefs? It's a knotty problem, but I honestly don't believe that arriving somewhere announcing "we are told that we have to be politically correct and win the hearts and minds of those who hate and want to murder us in cold blood" is the way to go: it can't be described as anything but *confrontational*, and surely what it is confronting is not the belief but the person. That sort of confrontation never defuses trouble: it makes it worse.
If some members of the wider community respond to the daft beliefs of a minority of the Muslim community by abreacting to the entire Muslim community, which I think you're saying is the fact of what is happening, they are in effect lumping together all the perfectly reasonable and decent Muslims (out of a Muslim population of two million or so) with what in most circumstances is called the "lunatic fringe". I don't know about you, but I find that bloody unfair! It seems to me that we also need to confront that 'belief in the wider community' of which you speak, the belief that takes a minority and assumes it to be a universal and acts in accordance with that belief in its relations with innocent people.
If a perception arose that everyone with a computer and access to the internet must be downloading child pornography, and non-computer-owners were a majority and took to avoiding anyone known to own a computer as a filthy paedo, you and I and Ed would each be not only very unhappy about it, but after a short while outraged. If we were young and hotheaded,we might even get into fights about it. We certainly wouldn't feel comfortable "integrating" with people who made their suspicion of us obvious at every turn. And I think that's a fair analogy to the position of many, many Muslims in this country: a majority, on the showing of those polls. They aren't bombers, they don't want to be bombers, they are as frightened of being bombed as we are and as much at risk of being bombed as anyone else, AND they are getting the blame for it as well. We could hide our computers, they can't hide the colour of their skin to avoid being 'confronted' for the sins of the few.
And then they are told that they must deal with the bombers and stop them -- which is rather as if you and I and Ed were told that because we have computers, it is up to us to stamp out internet pornography.
It also seems to me that it's quite a long step from vaguely believing that the CIA set up conspiracies that are bad for Muslims, to deciding to blow oneself up about it! I happen to believe that the CIA have set up rather a lot of conspiracies over the years, many of which they have subsequently said they did, and I woldn't be in the least surprised if they were still doing so, but I am not about to kill myself or anyone else on that account.
Chris,
As usual, very well put, and I like the computer=paedo analogy. Very apt.
xx
ed
Perhaps there are tooooo many rules and regulations on this site. Perhaps hierarchies form for the most negative of reasons.
Remember
1. Free speech is about allowing others to have their say
2. People who don't budge from their position on one particular issue may need some form of therapy.
3. One individuals humour is another individuals problem.
Harry (45),
1. I'm unaware of any restriction of free speech on this blog, excluding certain well-known 'rude' words which seem to stimulate non-appearance of comments.
2. I find it hard to ''budge" from a position founded in deep research. Certainly no harder than supporters of Israel seem to find it to admit the and the need to address this injustice as a pre-condition to peace.
3. I'm unsure exactly what you mean, but I agree we should be careful with irony and sarcasm, and always try to be polite.
I'm also unsure of your meaning regarding hierarchies and rules. Can you elaborate, please.
Salaam/Shalom
ed
Also, why do some individual's on this site take the position that they themselves have the right to demonize Jews and Israel (a particularly well documented Muslim point of view) whislt others cannot indulge in free speech. The notion of the Zionist plot is rather outdated.
As Daniel Finkelsien points out "So Israel is the Mac Guffin of the Middle East. As all the characters rush aound trying to find the suitcase with the Zionist plot hidden in it, the real story goes on. The terrible clash between the tragic failure of Arab nationalism and the dangerous rise of Islamic fundamentalism, that's the real story".
As Zia Rahman in his article "Time to confront the Muslim conspiracists" which refletcs my actual not perceived position. He states "In the end, the stark reality is that chief among the agents of change are British Muslims themselves. Moderate Muslims must speak out and challenge the conspricacy theories and misrepresentations when they encounter them".
Harry (47),
"The notion of the Zionist plot is rather outdated."
Perhaps, but the legacy of Zionist practice remains a running sore.
I have never demonised "Jews", but I do feel that Israel is the problem, particularly through its Zionist foundation (I never have used the term "zionist plot"). The very idea that Jewish suffering in Europe in any way could justify the violent displacement and dispossession of ANY existing native population ANYWHERE is absurd, arrogant, racist, and vicious, but underlies the entire zionist project, and is illustrated today by the continual expansion on Palestinian land of the 'settlements' in the Occupied Territories.
It may well be a "Muslim" viewpoint, but I'm neither Muslim nor Jew by cultural background, but have sympathy and respect for all cultures.
Israeli/Zionist behaviour has provided plenty of evidence for those who would demonise her, and she continues to do so virtually every day:
I do seriously recommend you read the "conclusion for Jewish readers" linked in my last post (injustice of al Nakba).
I think you're being rather selective in quoting Finklestein. I agree with a lot of what he has to say, but hasn't he been called a "self-hating Jew"?
Salaam/Shalom
ed
Without malice or maliciousness
Harry, good that you're back.
I am unsure as to whether or not being able to see that there may be two views on a very difficult situation (actually, since my people are involved, probably at least six million views, that being the Jewish population in the Middle East give or take a few tens of thousands -- when did we ever agree about anything?) is "demonising" either side in the discussion. Allowing that it is, for purposes of discussion, how does one person doing it prevent anyone else from expressing an opinion?
My objection to your posts was based not on your point of view but on the way you expressed it. Once you descended to personal insult, I responded in kind, which was not perhaps tactful but was I think both understandable and my entitlement.
Difference of opinion about where the responsibilty lies for a loathesome situation is never invalid; where Ed and I disagree, I suspect, is in whether or not we find that apportioning blame is in fact a helpful way to approach a problem. I don't think we can do anything about things that happened in 1933, or 1947, or 1956, or 1967; I feel that it is better to stop hurling accusations (whether true or not) or insults and start trying to make things calmer by saying, in effect, "there is right on every side, there is wrong on every side, and the time to start sorting it out is *now*; rehashing old grievances is not productive, let's concentrate on amending what is still making people angry".
I feel that a similar approach is needed in dealing with current situations in which people are forced into opposing camps by things over which they have no control, such as their birth. I would hold that it is wrong (and also stupid) to say to a Jew "You're a Jew so it is *all your fault* and it is entirely up to you to put it all right" and it is equally wrong to say to a Muslim "You're a Muslim so it is *all your fault* and it is entirely up to you to put it all right" or to a WASP "You're a WASP so it is *all your fault* and it is entirely up to you to put it all right" (this last is used in arguments about the Slave Trade and the present position of Negroes).
You have implied that it is entirely the responsibility of the Muslims both as individuals and en masse to alter themselves in order to become something that at present they are not. What benefit do you see in expecting only one side to make any adjustment? I'm blowed if I can see any, nor see that it is likely to work, but if you can show me reason to think that one-sided or completely biased negotiation is the best way forward I'm entirely ready to look at the proposition.
I make one proviso. If your reaction to this is to tell me what I think or what my beliefs are, or to address me as if I were some figment of your imagination who has existence only in ways you expect, I shall not pay attention to you. You have *no idea* what I think except insofar as I try to express it here, you don't know my species, sex, race, colour or creed, and I am, I assure you, an autonomous being (to the best of my belief, and let's not start the 'I think therefore I am' debate!) and not a creature who necessarily reacts as you expect, or thinks only along lines preconceived by you. Is that a fair proviso?
(That isn't a rule of the blog, nor am I a member of a heirarchy as far as I know; it's a statement of intent regarding my personal behaviour.)
I have a great deal of respect for individuals who when they quote from history provide a well balanced and well sourced viewpoint. I have NO respect for those individuals who do not. Personally, I prefer to carry out my own research rather that be presented with a one sided viewpoint that other's may hold.
Even David Cameron last week quoted in the Commons the abhorrent, pathologically driven matra of some so called moderate Muslims that Jews should be killed where they are found. These fascist views are to be found in history and even today many newspapers provide some detailed evidence into this ideology thanks to those who have chosen to speak out on the matter.
Harry (49),
"I have a great deal of respect for individuals who when they quote from history provide a well balanced and well sourced viewpoint. I have NO respect for those individuals who do not."
Same !
My main source of historical documents.
Salaam/Shalom
ed
And another useful discussion paper is .
xx
ed
Harry, if you're interested in having a look at the history, I do recommend the biography/memoir of Lewis Namier by his wife Julia (Lady Namier) for a view of those working to create the State of Israel between and after the two World Wars. He was the Jewish Agency for Palestine's Political Secretary in London for some while, and a close friend and associate of Chaim Weizmann's for many years. The text is taken from Namier's own writings, for the time before she was married to him, and it gives a picture of his motivation and of the action taken by the people who were on the spot at the time, albeit at third hand.
"Lewis Namier: A Biography", Oxford University Press 1971; ISBN 0 19 211706 8
I'm afraid I don't know how easy it is to get hold of: I have the copy given to my father, who was one of Namier's colleagues at Manchester. I do think it is worth hunting for, though.
Harry,
And, of course, from the House of Lords, a debate covering both 'sides' can be found . It happened last Tuesday.
Happy reading
ed
Ed Chris. I think we are talking at cross purposes here. I am talking about terrorism you are both talking about Israel.
Like many people I refuse to accept that the current terror threat is linked to Israel, Iraq etc. Taken from the Telegraph today "Some Middle East commentators have argued that the would be bombers were motivated byt the civilian killings in Afghanistan and Iraq. But one suspect is said to regard the Taliban, who routinely butchered their own people for the crime of adultery, homosexuality or for women showing too much flesh, as the leaders of the definitive moral society." Of course it is Muslims murdering Muslims in Iraq, they also have a choice.
Ed Hussein author of the Islamist, exposed the workings of the Hizb ut Tahrir, is contemptuous of the idea that the latest plots were inspired by the West's interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan. "This is just an excuse. They reject Western culture full stop. not just 'slags' in night clubs; They would have supported the bombing of Muslims attending the cinema in Cairo in the 1950's".
In my opinion Weinburgs assertion that "religion is an insult to human dignity" stands and is the main obstacle of human progress. I do not succumb to indoctrination or arguments based on 'unreason'. We are all entitled to our personal version of reality, mine is that in this case there is more evidence rooted in history which is not brought into the story which I feel is very devicive.
When I refered previously to some Muslims fitting in with us I was thinking of the incident where for example, a Government Minister John Reid visited a Muslim community only to be told that he had no right to be in a Muslim community. It is this attitude that I find offensive not only because it is aimed at Jews but also because it is aimed at non-Muslims, homosexuals, females.
Harry,
As far as I'm concerned, it's difficult to separate the issue of terrorism from the way "we" have behaved towards folk in the middle-east, which has provided excuses, if not reasons, for Wahabi/Islamist opposition, and thus the indoctrination and support for terrorist attacks upon us.
It's fairly well established that the USA, together with the Saudis, funded the Madrasas in Pakistan which churned out fundamentalist jihadis for the Afghan war against the (Godless) Russians. They believe it was them who beat the Russians, and they aren't all that wrong.
It's also a fact that America's (and her poodle's) unconditional support for Israel, no matter how much she defies the rules of decency, is a major and continuing irritant, as are the American bases in Saudi.
As long as we continue to behave in the way we have, we will continue to provide the terrorists with plenty of excuses. To believe that their behaviour is unconnected with ours is simple denial of the obvious, and the Zionist colony, imposed and maintained with extreme violence against the clear will of the entire neighbourhood lies at the heart of the problem.
Salaam/Shalom
ed
Harry, I wasn't talking exclusively about Israel at all! That conflict, as you say, provides *excuses* to those who want them; as the chap on the "Moral Maze" yesterday pointed out, in *this* country that's one of the excuses, in other countries where that excuse is invalid or irrelevant other excuses are found.
The inflaming of the young and impressionable may be made easier by the Iraq conflict and by the Palestinian business, but I do actually agree that these are by no means the only "causes" used in propaganda by those who are happy to send other people to do their killiing and dying for them.
What I think they possibly *do* make easier is the (wicked) encouragement of the idea that killing is a proper means for "argument". To kill women, children and old men is absolutely contrary to any half-way honest reading of the Koran, since it was specifically forbidden by the Prophet, and in order to get round that prohibition fancy footwork about "jihad" and its meaning has to be possible. Jihad is intended as defensive only, so it is necessary to be able to suggest that killing innocents is somehow a defence of Islam. Innocent Muslims being killed, and that being blamed on the West, does make this fancy footwork easier for the fundamentalists.
It does also seem to me, that whilst one must be uncompromising in one's treatement of the wicked, it is a mistake to assume that entire groups are wicked, particularly if one bases the assumption on those who shout loudest. The ones who keep quiet, don't make a nuisance and are getting on with being perfectly good citizens are much easier to ignore, but *they* are the ones who should be treated with consideration and not forced into an anger that at present they have no need for. That's why I hesitate to say "the Muslims" for instance as a blanket term: there are different sorts of Muslim, and by that I don't just mean the different sects like Sunni and Shia; in each sect there are extremists, moderates, fellow-travellers, the equivalent of "Sunday Christians", and lumping them all together is not really reasonable.
I'm afraid I am going to have to leave this here; I'm about to set out by land and sea for Finland, and it is going to take a while to get there. Sorry. I am not ignoring you, am just being elsewhere, if I don't reply to any point you make.
By the way, if you missed last week's "From Fact To Fiction", do see if it's on Listen Again. It did a good job of making the point about how a Muslim is supposed to react these days. It was called something like "Going ±«Óătv", I think.
Yes, it is wrong to assumen that entire groups are wicked. Whether they are Jews, Israeli's, Americans, Muslims etc. However, my original point was that a Muslim journalist was urgeing 'moderate' Muslims to speak out so that they would in fact become the ones who 'shout the loudest'. or at least contribute to the debate or indeed show that they abhore terrorist acts categorically. This is not the case in the Sunday Times today for example, a survey in June 2006 found that that 13% of Muslims in Britain viewed the 7/7 bombers as heroic and 16% said that while the attacks were wrong, there cause was right. In my opinion this highlights graphically the problem of indoctinating children and young people on religious grounds.
I would also like to point out that Ed Hussein who has attempted to shed light on the influence of fundamentalists has received death threats, perhaps this is why moderate British Muslims cannot find a voice.
In the World News section of the times under the heading 'Brainwashed children plead to die as Martyrs in Red Mosque siege"' in Pakistan. The report states that there was evidence that many had been brainwashed into a cult of martydom, and the the authorities feared last night that some were being prepared to be suicide bombers. One of the children Saima Khan said to her Father "life is transient, and the real glory is to sacrifice it for Allah".
Religious zealots cannot hide behind Israel, Iraq and America for their actions because, what they are doing is in the name of Allah. Those who teach these doctrines need to be stopped. If Israel, Jews and America were all wiped from the earth today, the religious zealotry I refer to above would not cease to exist.
Perhaps the biggest grievance that Islamic terrorists have is that they have not been able to achieve their prime aims which is to bring about a worldwide Islamic State.
Harry (58),
"Perhaps the biggest grievance that Islamic terrorists have is that they have not been able to achieve their prime aims which is to bring about a worldwide Islamic State."
Remarkably similar to the frustration of the New Crusaders, Shrub and al Poodle and their failure to bring about hegemony for their world dominating ideology.
xx
ed
Ed (59)
When does Osama's term of office expire so he has to stand for re-election?
I was surprised to see this thread still going.
Is it true that if you live in a world of your own then reality escapes you?
I dunno. Does it?