On the 14th of December Britain’s Channel 4 television station ran an interview with a “British Palestinian” – an interview that lasted 9 minutes and offered no opportunity for response. A classic case of media manipulation of the truth to further a prejudiced and antisemitic agenda. The classic British (and not only British) procedure of transmitting lies and distortions as facts is fundamental to the reworking of the image that until the 1960s viewed Jews as eternal victims of oppression and persecution. That reworking has been so successful, it has wiped out Muslim imperialism and colonialism as an article of Islamic faith, replacing it instead with Israeli (Jew) as regional aggressor and persecutor of Palestinians. It disregards any inconvenient facts that may muddy the waters.
On the 15th of December I wrote to complain to Channel 4. I stated that “The programme was out of context, historically inaccurate and failed at any point to reference Jewish refugees forced out of lands they had inhabited in some cases for over 2,000 years. This is an egregious and fascistic abuse of media power.”
The response was hardly surprising. My experience of complaining to the British national media (such as the BBC) is that they are world class experts on delay and denial. They can draw out a complaint over many months and then at the final stage, when backed into a corner, they simply lie in order to dismiss any complaint that may embarrass them.
The initial response was a standard Channel 4 acknowledgment. It claimed: to “provoke debate” and to “represent unheard voices from all around the country.” Francesca Murray, my friendly Customer Services adviser then replied as follows: “Channel 4 News is a duly impartial programme which prides itself on its diversity of voice. The voice of young British-Palestinians is one that is rarely heard, especially in relation to the current debate about Britain’s colonial past……we believe it is important to air a diverse range of views – and we have done so across the political spectrum.”
My too bitter response (fleshed out below) will, no doubt, receive a derisory, if any, response.
Dear Francesca, if your previous explanation is indeed correct, the British focus would not be on Balfour but on Sykes – Picot’s original 1916 agreement and the subsequent creation of most of the Muslim states, a move that ran roughshod over ancient tribal boundaries and created a century of intertribal imperial envy, conflict, and incalculable rivers of blood across the Near-East and beyond.
Channel 4s response superficially, sounds wonderful, but in practice it conceals a far darker agenda. Provoking debate? While I presume that Channel 4 would not provide a platform to the Klu Klux Klan or neo-Nazis they do provide a platform to speakers who are members of the radical left and therefore, in far too many cases, antisemitic. The recent Investigation into the British Labour Party by the Equality and Human Rights Commission is damning. Will Channel 4 fund and air a thought-provoking series of programmes on how to de-nazify the radical Left, or is that “too” thought provoking?
Channel 4 provides a platform for Muslims who affiliate with the Muslim Brotherhood, a fascist organisation whose greatest strength is its protean ability to cater to the Western press in toning down its hatred for Western infidel Society. A simple reading of the manifesto created by the Muslim Brotherhood, (which was founded by Hassan al-Banna in Egypt in 1928) should chill the blood of any person who fears for humanities survival. Central to its belief system is implementation of Islamic Sharia law in all aspects of life. It believes that Islam lost its prominence due to corruption by Western nations (and in Egypt, due to the influence of British colonialism).
Sayyid Qutb, one of the Brotherhoods main authorities has exercised even greater influence outside of the Muslim Brotherhood to organisations such as al Qaeda. Qutb believed that Muslim societies were no longer Islamic and that only through a return to Islam’s 7th Century roots could the Muslim nation be saved. He was regarded (before his execution for plotting the overthrow of the Egyptian government) as even too extreme for the then leadership of the Muslim Brotherhood. The Muslim Brotherhood subscribes to prejudice and bigotry as articles of faith. But in its English language websites it tones down all that boring stuff! It wants to keep us all “on side”.
Does Channel 4 ask people to provide details of affiliation or belief before accepting them to talk or is it only with Jewish sounding names (and their supporters) that Channel 4 are careful in vetting?
I do not believe that Islam is incompatible with Western Values just as I do not believe that all Muslims are terrorists or racists. The Muslim Brotherhood believes in an institutionalised class structure based on faith and race through the Dhimmi and should be feared wherever it calls home. Will Channel 4 now de-platform them?
I note also that Channel 4s debate on Zionism may permit Israeli extremists to voice their views as a means of rightly condemning them for their bigotry. By the way, this is an excellent example of broadcasting negative propaganda. But Channel 4 will never permit reasoned and intelligent debate on Zionism by its supporters, because that would provoke debate and provide a platform for reasonable and tolerant voices which, therefore, are not permitted a hearing. I note also that Channel 4 have not aired programming to discuss the ethnic cleansing of the Jews of Jerusalem or, of Judea and Samaria in 1948 by British controlled forces.
The Arab Legion became the army of Transjordan and its successor state, Jordan and was commanded by Sir John Bagot Glubb, aka Glubb Pasha, a British soldier (see following). In fact, the Arab Legion was trained, funded, kitted out by, and entirely officered by British officers or officers trained by Britain. You may of course, not believe me, but may I suggest you google Lieutenant-General Sir John Bagot Glubb, KCB, CMG, DSO, OBE, MC, KStJ, KPM? Within the Arab League Army all but five of the officers of the rank of Major or higher were British or trained by Britain.
Channel 4 might then rouse the British Parliament into asking questions about how a majority Jewish city (Jerusalem) was attacked by Arab forces under the control of Britain and its Jewish heritage destroyed in an act of cultural genocide, again, by forces owing their loyalty to Britain and officered by British soldiers, armed by Britain, and paid for, by the British government. And this, not four years after the end of World War 2 and the Shoah. It is an acknowledgment of a British crime against humanity that even 72 years after this British led Aktion commenced, is long over-due. Will Channel 4, in the most-worthy of causes (impartiality and historical accuracy) set the British record straight by scheduling a program to highlight the terrible war crime committed, in effect, by British forces against the Jewish people?
I note also that Channel 4 have never had a debate about the ethnic cleansing of the Jews of the Muslim world or, the prejudice and cultural vandalism that is fundamental to the running of the United Nations Organisation. These are whole other areas of investigation that no doubt, the media giant will want to explore to demonstrate its adherence to concepts of integrity and diversity.
There are often questions about why antisemitism seems incurable. But really? The answer is obvious. Islam and Christianity are humanities two missionary faiths and as such they can only prove their pre-eminence through endlessly increasing their numerical superiority, and the slaughter of anyone who disagrees (through their continued existence) with that superiority. Prejudice and persecution both perpetuate and provide physical proof of superior purpose. While post-World War 2, conservative forces in Christianity may have realised the evil inherent in the missionary enterprise, Islam is yet to begin moving down this path towards acknowledging either original sin or ongoing enterprise.
Intermittent massacres confirm the rule because fear is inter-generational. Islam is as guilty as Christianity in its acquisitive missionary imperialist and colonialist past. I therefore presume, Francesca Murray, that you will ensure Channel 4 commissions lots of series of programming on Muslim colonialism, on Muslim imperialism and on the Islamist tendency towards slaughtering the infidel. You could begin by airing a season on neo-Ottoman Turkey. The last 140 years makes for a whole series of fascinating history lessons. And the thread that runs throughout that 140 years which, cannot be denied, is that Turkish lands are drenched in the blood of its non-Turkish Sunni and other minority victims.
Finally, you could silence the sycophants who urge us to accept a bogus Muslim history. This is a history that obscures or shows an absence of prejudice and violence against its minorities. History demonstrates, time and again that the former (call it appeasement of a false narrative) leads, inevitably, to the latter (prejudice and violence). You could silence them by running a season on Muslim theological antisemitism throughout the 1,400 – year history of the Muslim faith.
Tolerance cannot be measured in terms of degrees of intolerance. Tolerance is not hierarchical, not conditional, nor intermittent. Tolerance is never intersectional. All of these are using the wrong word to describe the condition.
These examples of contemporary Western tolerance are no more than examples of rationalised bigotry.
These are just a few suggestions for you to run with if you are honest about justifying the existence of Channel 4. Otherwise, your claim to provoking debate, informing the public, and representing unheard voices is no more than an empty slogan intended to conceal a rich and toxic past of prejudiced reporting.