The London Blasts: Media Review

DAY 47: 23 August 2005

Contents

Terrorism - British Collusion

The Panorama Programme - More Reactions

SNIPPET

TERRORISM - BRITISH COLLUSION

On 10 July 1985, French secret service personnel blew up the Greenpeace vessel, The Rainbow Warrior, as it lay in harbour in Auckland, New Zealand. Greenpeace photographer Fernando Pereira was killed. After months of denials, the French Government was forced to admit responsibility.

Greenpeace has now used the Freedom of Information Act to uncover secret documents on the Thatcher Government's reaction to what New Zealand Prime Minister David Lange called, 'a sordid act of international state-backed terrorism'.

The Guardian reports that, 'The then transport secretary, Nicholas Ridley, described the incident as "an outrageous act of terrorism" ', and the first draft of an official letter on the subject contained this wording. Fernando Pereira was referred to as the 'murdered man'.

Geoffrey Howe, then Foreign Secretary, intervened to have the letter toned down, with the Prime Minister's support, so that in the end it read: 'This was a lamentable event. The government deeply regret the death of a member of the crew. We hope the culprits can be brought to justice.'

The documents also show that British diplomats agreed that it was in Britain's interest for the French and the New Zealand government, which was furious at the bombing in its waters and was trying to prosecute the perpetrators, to patch up their differences and seek a way of ending the controversy.

One wrote: "I share the view that it is in our own and the general western interest for France and New Zealand to seek an accommodation now that [the French prime minister] Fabius's frank if tardy admission of French guilt has terminated the lies and evasion and opened the way for more constructive moves."

In other words, it is not terrorism that is the prime focus, it is not the killing of civilians that is the prime focus, the prime focus is 'our own and the general western interest'.

This remains true today.

Israel has licence. Russia has licence. Colombia has licence. Nepal has licence. China has licence to kill civilians in the name of 'the war on terror'.

The 'war on terrorism' is now, and always has been, a 'war on official enemies', on those who disobey, those who cause problems, those who refuse to play the role allotted to them.

Interestingly, the letter Nicholas Ridley was writing was addressed to John Prescott, then an opposition Labour MP sponsored by the National Union of Seamen, who had written to the Transport Secretary protesting against the bombing of the Rainbow Warrior, and asking for an inquiry (which the British Government had the power to hold, but refused to carry out).

Now John Prescott is the Deputy Prime Minister of Britain, and in charge of the British Government while Tony Blair is on holiday in the Bahamas. Greenpeace comments: 'The Thatcher administration was famously unsympathetic to Greenpeace and so their action in downplaying an act of state terrorism and murder was entirely in character. However, 20 years on, remaining mute in the face of the blowing up of a peaceful ship in the harbour of a Commonwealth country seems strangely at odds with Tony Blair's war on terror.'

The purpose of the bombing was to prevent Greenpeace from protesting against French nuclear testing on Mururoa Atoll in the South Pacific. French nuclear testing on Mururoa Atoll was terminated in March 1996.

PANORAMA REACTIONS

COVERAGE

Following the Guardian's instant reaction to the Panorama programme on the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) yesterday, the Telegraph and the Independent have substantial comments today, with the Guardian and The Times contenting themselves with news reports.

There are also letters in the Guardian in response to Madeleine Bunting's article yesterday.

REALISM SHOWS ITS FACE

The most interesting letter is from the Panorama presenter John Ware.

Ware writes: 'Of course Iraq and Palestine fuel violent extremism; but so does extreme intolerance of other faiths.' (emphasis added)

Searching the transcript of the Panorama broadcast, it is just possible to detect this admission, in relation to Palestine but not Iraq: 'The Israel-Palestine conflict is over land and holy sites. It's a rallying cry for young martyrs in the global Ummah.' This second sentence is barely audible in the programme itself, against the background of a violent incident.

Nowhere else in the programme is there any admission by the Panorama team that, 'Of course Iraq and Palestine fuel violent extremism.'

John Ware protests that he was very clear that the purpose of the programme was 'to highlight how the MCB is either in denial of, or tolerates, racism and sectarianism in some of its affiliates.'

The two main questions are (1) why this was selected as the sole topic and (2) why the a Muslim coalition is treated in a way that other major religious coalitions would not be.

THE KINGDOM OF GOD

Ware also writes in his response:

'Madeleine says I "slyly" quoted the Pakistani political philosopher, the late Maw-lana Mawdudi, out of context. But Mawdudi's Islamic state is meant as a timeless contract...'

It is not only Islamic thinkers who have called for the establishment of theocratic states, or the rule of God through earthly governments. To take only one example at random, the United Free Church of Scotland has in its Statement of the Church's Faith, this vision of God's rule on earth:

VI. CONCERNING THE KINGDOM OF GOD

We believe that the unchangeable purpose of God is the establishing and perfecting of His Kingdom-a society ruled in all its parts by love and righteousness, a society of which Christ is King, and to which all belong who are themselves animated by His Spirit. We believe that the Kingdom of God is already among us, and that the appointed task of all good men is to advance it, and to bring every relation of human life under the dominion of Christ. We believe that Christ is the true and only Lord of all mankind, and that those who confess Him are bound to make Him known till all the world acknowledge Him as Lord and King.

We believe that the Kingdom of God will finally dominate the life of man, and that in the world to come God will complete and perfect it, the Lord Jesus Christ being manifested in power and great glory.

Whether one accepts or rejects the desire of religious believers to establish their beliefs in political form, it is not only among Muslims that one finds this kind of thinking.

THE MARK OF THE BEAST

As for religious supremacy, this is the hallmark of all religions, and indeed of denominations within each major religious tradition. To take an example again at random, the Church of the Seventh Day Adventists believe that other Christian denominations fail to obey God's law because they keep Sunday rather than Saturday as the holy Sabbath. In their own Frequently Asked Questions, they include this explanation:

5. We read further, in the above book that celebrating the Sabbath on a Sunday "had its origins in ‘the mystery of lawlessness’." We are further told that all churches that continue to worship on Sunday will "eventually receive the mark of the beast." Surely this terminology is saying that all other churches are under Satan’s influence and the SDAs are the only one serving the true Lord?

Seventh-day Adventists believe that the fourth commandment is just as important as the other nine and that God actually wants the people that He has saved to worship on a Saturday. Obviously many other Christians don’t see this in quite the same way as we do, but we believe that some time in the future the Sabbath versus Sunday question will become a key issue in Christianity. When it does then Christians will have to make a choice as to which side they are on. It is this decision, choosing to obey God or not to obey Him, that we think will eventually determine who has the ‘mark of the beast’. We don’t claim to have reached that time yet and we certainly would not say that any truly born again Christian who is currently worshipping on a Sunday has the ‘mark of the beast’ or is under Satan’s influence.

Note that this qualification applies only to 'truly born again Christians'.

Similarly, the Church of Ireland, also a member of Churches Together, has in its Thirty-Nine Articles of faith:

22. Of Purgatory.

The Romish Doctrine concerning Purgatory, Pardons, Worshipping and Adoration, as well of Images as of Relics, and also Invocation of Saints, is a fond thing, vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God.

This is only one of several sectarian Articles. The Church prefaces this document with these words:

Historic documents often stem from periods of deep separation between Christian Churches. Whilst, in spite of a real degree of convergence, distinct differences remain, negative statements towards other Christians should not be seen as representing the spirit of this Church today.

The Church of Ireland affirms all in its tradition that witnesses to the truth of the Gospel. It regrets that words written in another age and in a different context should be used in a manner hurtful to or antagonistic towards other Christians.

Despite this regret, the Articles have not been formally amended or abolished.

The Panorama programme focussed very much on Muslim attitudes towards 'unbelievers'. Yet the distinction between believers and unbelievers is central to all religious institutions and all faiths.

JEWISH FUNDAMENTALISM

Christian fundamentalism is part of the religious and political scene in both Britain and the United States, and hardly needs sampling here. There is also the phenomenon of Jewish Fundamentalism, summarized here by David Hirst, reviewing a study of the subject by Israeli human rights activist Israel Shahak and Norton Mezvinsky:

'Like its Islamic counterpart, Jewish fundamentalism in Israel has grown enormously in political importance over the past quarter-century. Its committed, hard-core adherents, as distinct from a larger body of the more traditionally religious, are thought to account for some 20 to 25 percent of the population. They, and more particularly the settlers among them, have acquired an influence, disproportionate to their numbers, over the whole Israeli political process, and especially in relation to the ultra-nationalist right, which, beneath its secular exterior, actually shares much of their febrile, exalted outlook on the world. It is fundamentalism of a very special, ethnocentric and fiercely xenophobic kind, with beliefs and practices that are "even more extremist," says Shahak, "than those attributed to the extremes of Islamic fundamentalism," if not "the most totalitarian system ever invented." '

'Like fundamentalism everywhere, the Jewish variety seeks to restore an ideal, imagined past. If it ever managed to do so, the Israel celebrated by the American "friends of Israel" as a "bastion of democracy in the Middle East" would, most assuredly, be no more. For, in its full and perfect form, the Jewish Kingdom that arose in its place would elevate a stern and wrathful God's sovereignty over any new-fangled, heathen concepts such as the people's will, civil liberties or human rights. It would be governed by the Halacha, or Jewish religious law, of which the rabbis would be the sole interpreters, and whose observance clerical commissars, installed in every public and private institution, would rigorously enforce, with the help of citizens legally obligated to report any offense to the authorities. A monarch, chosen by the rabbis, would rule and the Knesset would be replaced by a Sanhedrin, or supreme judicial, ecclesiastic and administrative council. Men and women would be segregated in public, and "modesty" in female dress and conduct would be enforced by law. Adultery would be a capital offense, and anyone who drove on the Sabbath, or desecrated it in other ways, would be liable to death by stoning. As for non-Jews, the Halacha would be an edifice of systematic discrimination against them, in which every possible crime or sin committed by a Gentile against a Jew, from murder or adultery to robbery or fraud, would be far more heavily punished than the same crime or sin committed by a Jew against a Gentile--if, indeed, the latter were considered to be a felony at all, which it often would not be.'

'All forms of "idolatry or idol-worship," but especially Christian ones (for traditionally Muslims, who are not considered to be idolaters, are held in less contempt than Christians), would be "obliterated," in the words of Shas party leader Rabbi Ovadia Yossef. According to conditions laid down by Maimonides, whose Halacha rulings are holy writ to the fundamentalists, those Gentiles, or so-called "Sons of Noah," permitted to remain in the Kingdom could only do so as "resident aliens," obliged under law to accept the "inferiority" in perpetuity which that status entails, to "suffer the humiliation of servitude," and to be "kept down and not raise their heads to the Jews." At weekday prayers, the faithful would intone the special curse: "And may the apostates have no hope, and all the Christians perish instantly." One wonders what the Jerry Falwells and Pat Robertsons think of all this; for it is strange, this new adoration by America's evangelicals of an Israel whose Jewish fundamentalists continue to harbor a doctrinal contempt for Christianity only rivaled by the contempt which the Christian fundamentalists reserve for the Jews themselves.'

Other reviewers (1, 2) focus on particular Jewish thinkers:

'Rabbi Kook the Elder, the revered father of the messianic tendency of Jewish fundamentalism, said, “The difference between a Jewish soul and souls of non-Jews—all of them in all different levels—is greater and deeper than the difference between a human soul and the souls of cattle.” '

'Rabbi Kook’s entire teaching, which is followed devoutly by, among others, those who have led the settler movement on the occupied West Bank, is based upon the Lurianic Cabbala, the school of Jewish mysticism that dominated Judaism from the late 16th to the early 19th century. “One of the basic tenets of the Lurianic Cabbala,” the authors write, “is the absolute superiority of the Jewish soul and body over the non-Jewish soul and body. According to the Lurianic Cabbala, the world was created solely for the sake of Jews; the existence of non-Jews was subsidiary. If an influential Christian bishop or Islamic scholar argued that the difference between the superior souls of non-Jews and the inferior souls of Jews was greater than the difference between the human soul and souls of cattle, he would incur the wrath of all and be viewed as an anti-Semite by most Jewish scholars regardless of whatever less meaningful, positive statements he included.” '

'The scholarly authors of books about Jewish mysticism and the Lurianic Cabbala, such as Gershon Scholem, have, the authors charge, “willfully omitted reference to such ideas. These authors are supreme hypocrites. They are analogous to many authors of books on Stalin and Stalinism. Until recently, people who read only the books written by Stalinists could not know about Stalin’s crimes and would have false notions of the Stalinist regimes and their real ideologies.” '

'Common to both the Talmud and Halacha, Orthodox religious law, is a differentiation between Jews and non-Jews. The late, highly revered Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, the “Lubovitcher Rebbe” who headed the Chabad movement and wielded great influence in Israel as well as in the U.S., explained that, “The difference between a Jewish and a non-Jewish person stems from the common expression: ‘Let us differentiate.’ Thus, we do not have a case of profound change in which a person is merely on a superior level. Rather, we have a case of ‘let us differentiate’ between totally different species. This is what needs to be said about the body: the body of a Jewish person is of a totally different quality from the body of [members] of all nations of the world...A non-Jew’s entire reality is only vanity. It is written, ‘And the strangers shall guard and feed your flocks’ (Isaiah 61:5). The entire creation [of a non-Jew] exists only for the sake of the Jews...” '

'They [Shahak and Mezvinsky] cite, for example, Rabbi Yitzhak Ginsburgh, who wrote a chapter of a book in praise of [Baruch] Goldstein and what he did [killing 29 Palestinian Muslims in a mosque in Hebron]. An immigrant to Israel from the U.S., Ginsburgh speaks freely of Jews’ genetic-based spiritual superiority over non-Jews; “If you saw two people drowning, a Jew and a non-Jew, the Torah says you save the Jewish life first….Something is special about Jewish DNA….If a Jew needs a liver, can you take the liver of an innocent non-Jew passing by to save him? The Torah probably would permit that. Jewish life has an infinite value.” '

'Shahak and Mezvinsky point out that, “Changing the words ‘Jewish’ to ‘German’ or ‘Aryan’ and ‘non-Jewish’ to ‘Jewish’ turns the Ginsburgh position into the doctrine that made Auschwitz possible in the past.'

These are the views of an element in Judaism, they are not 'the essence' of Judaism.

THE MEDIA AND ISLAM

Faisal Bodi remarks that,

'The inference most Muslims will have drawn from a programme savaging orthodox Islamic positions is that it it not so much the MCB but Islam itself that is being put on trial (when did we ever see a documentary grilling rabbis on some of the vile beliefs rabbis have historically held about gentiles?).'

There are positions and strands within all the major religions that deserve to be probed and criticised (as we have seen above). Would Panorama scrutinise and interrogate Jewish leaders, or Christian leaders, with the same degree of ferocity?

Why did Panorama not place the 'extreme views' it uncovered amongst British Muslims in the context of 'extreme views' within other major religions?

Yes, a large number, perhaps a majority, of British Muslims believe that Islam itself is under attack from outside. This is not unknown in Christianity either. The British group Christian Voice that protested against Jerry Springer The Opera holds that, 'The Christian Faith itself is under attack from politically-correct local government and the media and indecency is the rule in the arts... The problem is, our leaders try to run things without God.'

John Ware might argue that what is a mainstream view among British Muslims is a fringe phenomenon among British Christians. Perhaps, but a matter of fact to be established by investigation, not claimed by assertion.

What is problematic is the identification of Muslims as radically different from Jews or Christians, and Islam as radically distinct from (and more 'dangerous' than) Judaism or Christianity.

The Panorama programme was not about 'religious extremism' as a subject, or it would have also asked Christian leaders to condemn and 'correct' the teachings of particular individuals, as well as asking Muslim leaders to condemn and correct the views of MCB members. It would have asked Jewish leaders to condemn and 'correct' the teachings of particular strands of Judaism.

By focussing on 'Islamic extremism' in isolation, the programme gave the impression that the problems identified were unique to Islam. By focussing on them against the background of the 7/7 bombings, Panorama gave the impression that Islam is a uniquely extremist religion, uniquely given to violent outbursts.

There is nothing wrong with investigating and criticising elements of any religion, or any religious body. Many of the criticisms made in the Panorama programme were entirely justified.

However, in the present circumstances, where there is enormous fear and hatred of Islam and of Muslims, it is irresponsible to increase that fear and hatred by focussing solely on the problems within mainstream Islam.

It is irresponsible to set mainstream Islam different standards to those set for mainstream Christianity or mainstream Judaism.

The Panorama programme increased fear and hatred of Islam in the non-Muslim population, without increasing understanding of Islam. A programme condemning feelings of religious supremacy amongst Muslims has increased feelings of religious supremacy amongst Christians.

We'll be returning to this topic.

JNV welcomes feedback.