The rest of us hung around in Britain until the monarchy became so attenuated that no-one was quite sure what its role was, apart from making lots of money while paying less tax, driving wine-powered cars and reverting to their roots by selling sausages to their subjects.

Remember Americans, without your revolution you’d all be drinking tea and eating crumpets like what we do, when we aren’t drinking Starbucks and eating eating blueberry muffins.

And for more serious reading and discussion, read The Future of American Power: How America Can Survive the Rise of the Rest by Fareed Zakaria.

The world is changing, but it is going the United States’ way. The rest that are rising are embracing markets, democratic government (of some form or another), and greater openness and transparency. It might be a world in which the United States takes up less space, but it is one in which American ideas and ideals are overwhelmingly dominant. The United States has a window of opportunity to shape and master the changing global landscape, but only if it first recognizes that the post-American world is a reality — and embraces and celebrates that fact.

I was asked by the BBC to make this speech, if speech is the word. They hoped I suspect, but in no way insisted, that I would fight their corner against cuts, against the slicing of the licence fee: at the very least they expected I might make a case for the public service aspects of comedy, and for its importance and for the need for it to be nurtured and fostered. I have happy to do that, not out of eternal loyalty and belief in an institution that has, as much as any school or college made me who I am, but because I genuinely cannot see that the nation would benefit from a diminution of any part of the BBC’s great whole. It should be as closely scrutinised as possible of course, value for money, due humility and all that, but to reduce its economies of scale, its artistic, social and national reach for misbegotten reasons of ideology or thrift would be a tragedy. We got here by an unusual route that stretches back to Reith. We have evolved extraordinarily, like our parliament and other institutions, such is the British way. Yes, we could cut it all down and remake ourselves in the image of Italy or Austria or some other notional modern state. We could sharpen the axe, we could cut away apparently dead wood, we could reinvent the wheel, we could succumb to the natural desires of commercial media companies. Although I have an axe to grind on this, you should understand that it is personal not professional. Actually, if licence fee slicing and other radical plans do go ahead, I do not believe it would affect my career as either performer, presenter or producer, in fact I would probably profit more from the change. It is simply that I don’t want to live in a country that emasculates the BBC. Yes, I want to see Channel 4 secure, but I don’t believe that the only way to save it is to reduce the BBC. We can afford what we decide we can afford.

Read it all.

Alternatively, you can listen to the mellifluous tones of Stephen Fry’s voice on his Podcast, which is highly recommended.

Who would you rather have as President? A guy who routinely risks thousands of dollars on the throw of a pair of dice? Or a cautious but winning poker player?

I like this story from Barack Obama’s days as a state senator in Springfield, Illinois:

Obama’s play-to-win approach drove other players crazy. Former state senator Larry Walsh, a conservative corn farmer from Joliet, once got ready to pull in a pot with a four-of-a-kind hand. But Obama had four of a kind too, of higher rank. Walsh slammed down his cards. “Doggone it, Barack, if you were more liberal in your card-playing and more conservative in your politics, you and I would get along much better,” he said.

The late Golda Meir famously said that “peace will come once Arabs love their children more than they hate ours”. Since then the pithy quote has been endlessly repeated and recycled (recycling of quotes being a great contribution of blogdom to saving the environment), mostly as a convenient discussion gambit. I wish, however, to ponder briefly its meaning, in a more general sense (ranging beyond the particulars of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict) and claim that it represents the sort of mote in the eye which is inimical to proper understanding of conflicts, to say nothing of their resolution.

The kernel of Meir’s argument is that “Arabs” (presumably, Palestinian Arabs) are motivated by the hatred of Israelis/Jews in precedence to their own perceived self-interest, that they are indeed willing knowingly to sacrifice their self-interest and the future of their kith and kin if they can only damage their enemies. Similar argument is advanced by the sort of “anti-imperialists” that proliferate on CiF when the moon is full, who claim that the “Zionists” (fill-in “Zio-Nazis” or “Zio-Cons” or “Jews”, bloody or otherwise, if you wish) came to the Middle East in order to dispossess and expel Palestinians/Arabs/Muslims – thereby incurring warfare and death to themselves because, presumably, they hate Arab children more than they love their own.

The simple truth is that, almost invariably, in ethnic conflicts people love their children dearly, to the exclusion of everything else. Indeed, they love them so much that they are perfectly willing to do ill by their enemy and their enemy’s children. Actors in ethnic conflicts act in their own understanding of self-interest and their own perception of their historical rights, their victimhood, their dreams and, yes, their children. Their perception might be a caricature of reality, but it is a caricature that, by the dint of being embraced by individuals ruthless or desperate sufficiently to kill and die in its name, shapes reality.

Now, this is why it is, I believe, so important to understand this simple point and reject the implicit assumptions behind Golda’s quote. Because if she is right and actors in ethnic conflicts (whether only Arabs/Palestinians or all players in all conflicts) indeed hate their enemy even if it contradicts, in their own minds, their own self-interest, then there is no point in seeking conflict resolution. If indeed, to give one example, Hamas hates Israeli children more than it loves Palestinian children, then there is no prospect of peace. All that remains is to sit the conflict out, wait till in a next generation, or perhaps in the next-but-one, or perhaps never, they will love their children more than they hate ours. However, if Golda was wrong, if Hamas (like other actors in all ethnic conflicts) is willing to do awful, inhumane deeds to Israeli children precisely because, in their minds, they do so for the sake of Palestinian children, then there is hope (perverse as it might sound). There is room to persuade, to create conditions and understanding whereby they can do well by their own children without doing ill by ours. Alternatively, to wean the mass of their supporters by offering them a future in which, through compromise, they can do better by their own children.

Not that it is simple or straightforward. Perhaps it is destined for failure. Perhaps it is a noble, yet naive sentiment. Yet – and this is precisely the point – it is possible in principle. And, given the chance, small as it might be, of resolving the conflict, of bringing peace and security and justice to both sides, it must be attempted. This precisely is the reason why it is so important to nail down the misconceived assumptions underlying Golda Meir’s quote.

The advert links to this Met Police page. This would never have happened in the days of the pro-Muslim Brotherhood copper, Detective Inspector Bob Lambert!

Personally, I prefer the terminology “Takfiri jihadi”, or “Islamist terrorist” to “Islamic extremist”. A person might have extreme religious views without representing a security threat. “Takfiri jihadi” won’t be well understood. “Islamist terrorists” would be, and is more specific than “Islamic extremists”. Therefore I think I’d prefer “Islamist terrorists” as the title.

I might give the line a call. The British Muslim Initiative have put out a press release threatening me with their legal advisors. Given that they’re a sister organisation to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, I suspect they’re up to no good.

Colombian Defense Minister Juan Manuel Santos said the Colombian military had infiltrated the FARC leadership and arranged for the hostages to be taken to the south of the country, where they were to be picked up by helicopters that the rebels believed were controlled by another group.

The Colombian military helicopters flew the 15 away without violence.

Despite his ineffectual plea for Betancourt’s release, Hugo Chavez had nothing to do with it. I can’t wait for his reaction.

Update: Reuters reports:

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, a self-styled socialist revolutionary who has been at odds with Uribe over his support for the rebels, called the Colombian leader to congratulate him on the successful operation, Venezuelan state television said.

What else could he do?

I will get to the “but” presently. Indulge me for a few paragraphs…

The growing popularity of blogging and so-called “citizen journalism” was once seen as a challenge to the traditional media. As news sources, blogs could sometimes dramatically scoop print and broadcast media, but I don’t think any serious media commentator honestly ever thought that this was a real threat to the professional news-gatherers. No, where newspapers, radio and television felt most threatened was in their role as opinion makers. Here bloggers came into their own as the forums best able to disseminate, dissect and discuss the news.

Soon the traditional media began to transform itself and to borrow the best aspects of blogging. Most now use their websites not only to publish their stories online, but to encourage users to “leave a comment” about the story. Some went further and launched blogs of their own, hiring professional writers and commentators to offer up daily opinion pieces for discussion. Even “citizen journalism” is now encouraged by the mainstream media. The ubiquity of camera-phones means that most news agencies ask members of the public to respond to any breaking story: “Were you there? Do you have photos? Video? What did you see?”

BUT… while newspapers may borrow the best ideas from blogs, it occurred to us at Harry’s Place that we might return the compliment.

That’s why we’re launching our ‘magazine’ section – Harry’s Place: Arts.

It will cover art, music, design, literature, photography, film, radio, television, and anything else that vaguely fits the bill.

Like the flagship Harry’s Place, there is no party line. Part of the fun is when the contributors don’t agree. We hope to retain the HP ethos of presenting considered but opinionated ideas in a colourful, engaging and readable way.

We have some distinct advantages. Unlike the mainstream media, we’re not time-sensitive, so if a writer discovers an album or a book from ten years ago and it excites them, they’ll review it! Chances are there are hundreds of other people who haven’t discovered it yet, or already love it and want to enthuse about it.

So, we offer you, the Harry’s Place reader, even more to read… and even more to argue about. We hope you’ll enjoy the new annex and the raft of new contributors drafted in to write for it.

And we hope it sets a new trend in blogging. We quite expect some of our blogging friends and rivals will follow suit. ;-)

To access the Harry’s Place ‘Arts’ pages, simply click on ARTS on the main menu. To return here, click on ‘Politics’

David T adds

Joining us on Harry’s Place Arts are a whole range of new authors. Some you’ll know, and others you won’t. We’ll possibly branch out from word and image into other ways of communicating ideas. Perhaps we’ll showcase videos. Possibly we’ll even have an “installation”. Who knows?

Although we started as a political blog, we’ve never restricted ourselves to political commentary. We hope this new section will give readers the opportunity to enjoy the range and depth of knowledge that Harry’s Place writers and commenters, at their best, manifest on these pages.

The first is the latest in a series of reports on Zionist/Jewish control of Hollywood. It turns out that not only “Chicken Run” is full of insidious Zionist propaganda, but so is “Saving Private Ryan,” directed by “the Jewish Steven Spielberg.”

The second, in essence, treats “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion” as a genuine document which accurately describes the behavior and activities of the Jews to this day.

Now I suppose if Galloway saw the above clips, his default reaction would be to shout: “It’s an Israeli website… It’s an Israeli translation.” But after the shouting stopped, he would still face the moral dilemma of taking money from, and lending his name to, an Iranian government operation which produces such poisonous stuff.

So my question to Galloway– and even more urgently to those who continue to associate with him politically– is the one from the old union organizing song: which side are you on?

“I demand the judiciary arrest all dogs with long, medium or short legs - together with their long-legged owners,”

Of course, dogs are disgusting, or rather their owners are when they allow their dogs to lick their faces or sleep in their beds. Cats are a different matter in Islam. The founder of Islam loved cats, famously cutting the sleeve of his coat so as not to disturb a sleeping feline. Yet, my cat is forever licking its arse. Both dogs and cats are vectors for disease. Which goes to show that some religious views from the past might have been entirely sensible at the time, even if the rationale for them was not known. Some risks may have been missed, and others can become less important with time and modern understanding of hygiene.

There is however, no Islamic edict that dogs are offensive in of themselves, outside of Mohammed’s view one should stay clear of dog saliva and wash seven times if you come in contact with it. Which is fair comment in my opinion.

On Radio 4 this morning it was reported that the Dundee Police had apologised for issuing the following postcard.

Shades of the Dudley Pig saga thought I, although it was probably going to be some liberal oversensitivity, rather than actual “Muslim outrage”^© Melanie Phillips. In fact, it appears that the fuss was created by a Labour Party Councillor called Mohammed Asif. That would hopefully preclude him being a member of the awkward squad who seem to spend their time attempting to create divisions in society based on faith. He raised the matter of the postcards at a meeting of the Tayside Joint Police Board, and managed to extract an apology from the Police, who said:

‘We did not seek advice from the force’s diversity adviser prior to publishing and distributing the postcards. That was an oversight and we apologise for any offence caused.’

How pathetic.

The ordinary furniture of life must not become the subject of political debate about community sensitivities. The Police should not have to submit a postcard for inspection by the diversity officer in case a puppy or cow might offend.

And the reason it is pathetic is not because we are caving in to “Dhimmitude”, as the more unhinged commentators suggest, but because the very community that is suggested to be offended is not in fact offended:

Shop assistant Irza Saeed said, however, Cheers would be happy to have the postcards featuring police-dog-in-training Rebel and advertising the new contact number for non-emergency calls to the police.

“We have a lot of customers of different cultures and religions but we are owned by Muslims and the workers are Muslim,” Miss Saeed said.

“I don’t feel that I’d be especially concerned or upset if we were given the postcards to distribute or that there would be anything wrong with that. However, it is part of Islam that we don’t have dogs around us.

“Most of our people are afraid of dogs but we try not to make a big deal of it.”

Mahmud Sarwar, trustee of the Scottish Islamic and Cultural Centre and the Dura Street mosque, didn’t have a problem with the cards either. He called for businesses to display them.

“I’ve not heard anything about that [the card] from members of the community,” Mr Sarwar said.

“I was round some shops today and at the mosque and nobody has said anything about it.”

Mr Sarwar said that religious sensitivities would prevent him from displaying the postcard on a building of religious significance but there was nothing to stop them being displayed in shops.

“There is not a dog—it is just a picture,” he said.

You can guess at the reaction of Daily Mail readers [scroll down]. Even Sunny Hundal buys the line that Muslims are upset and have a right to be upset, so it isn’t just the Daily Mail that is willing to uncritically accept the false “Muslims are offended” meme.

Councillor Asif should in future think before he opens his mouth and creates negative stories about his community. Thoughtless actions like this, and the subsequent spineless backdown from the Police, do the work of bigots for them. The Daily Mail’s reporting, as always, is lamentable, but it would help if people stopped themselves for a moment before they decide to speak for “a community” and gave a thought about how their words might reflect on the community they are presumably trying to protect.

Councillor Asif might also reflect on the fact that IslamOnline specifically allows the use of dogs for Police duties.

Here’s Mohammad Sawalha, President of the British Muslim Initiative, speaking to Al Jazeera in Arabic about his demonstration against last Sunday’s celebration of the foundation of the State of Israel:

The President of the British Muslim Initiative - Mohammad Sawalha - said in a speech to Al Jazeera:

“We, the Arab and Islamic community, gather here today to express our resentment at the celebrations by the Jewish community and the [evil Jew/Jewish evil] in Britain”

[والوبيل اليهودي في بريطانيا]

Translation by DaveM

Apart from the British Muslim Initiative, Sawalha has been active in a large number of other ventures. He is the past President of the Muslim Association of Britain. He was the founder of IslamExpo, and is registered as the holder of the IslamExpo domain name. He is also a trustee of the Finsbury Park Mosque: which was taken over from Abu Hamza by the Muslim Association of Britain, with the help of  Detective Inspector Bob Lambert.

All of the organisations that Sawalha is associated with have one thing in common. They are fronts for Hamas/the Muslim Brotherhood.

Sawalha also was one of the signatories to the letter from various “Muslim organisations” endorsing Ken Livingstone: a large number of whom are closely associated with various Muslim Brotherhood organisations.

Sawalha was also one of the subjects of the BBC Panorama documentary on Hamas fundraising in the United Kingdom [better formatted here]. That documentary made the following claims:

• Sawalha is said to have master minded much of Hamas’ political and military strategy.
• Sawalha was one of the senior activists in the dawah portals of Hamas. He was involved, let’s say, with the background of the finance, the logistic assistance.
• In London, Sawalha is alleged to have directed funds, both for Hamas’ armed wing, and for spreading its missionary dawah

Therefore, it is no surprise to hear him giving a speech to the Arabic media about “the evil Jew in Britain”.

Of course, you won’t hear the British Muslim Initiative saying anything like this in any of the many comment pieces Sawalha’s team write for the Guardian.

UPDATE

Al Jazeera has now changed the text to refer to “the Jewish Lobby”.

The original text contained the word الوبيل . It means “evil” or “noxious” or “dreaded” or “disasterous”.  We’ve asked other Arabic speakers, and they’ve confirmed that, combined with the word “Jew”, the sense of the phrase is “Evil Jew” or “Jewish evil”.

That word has been replaced with “lobby”, اللوبي. The words don’t look at all similar. So this isn’t a spelling mistake.  

If we wait a little bit longer, I bet they’ll change it to “the Zionist Lobby”.

UPDATE 2:

The British Muslim Initiative have published a press release about this article. They’ve posted it on here, but not on their own website!

British Muslim Initiative
http://www.bminitiative.com

News release
Attention: news desk
For immediate use

Zionist Racist website lies in order to justify its hate-rhetoric

While ‘Harry’s Place’ may not be known as a bastion of truth and balanced comment - not even in the remotest sense of these words - its latest blunder shows it as an entirely incompetent source of information.

In ‘reporting’ the anti-Israel demonstration that took place at Trafalgar Square on Sunday the 29th of June, the moderator of the said blog quoted BMI president Mohammed Sawalha’s comment to Al-Jazeera as: “We, the Arab and Islamic community, gather here today to express our resentment at the celebrations by the Jewish community and the evil/noxious Jew in Britain” – Translated by DaveM.

What is beyond doubt is that DaveM seems to be an entirely incapable and dangerously incompetent translator, clearly failing to understand and hence translate the simple word ‘Lobby’. This word is pronounced in Arabic identically to the way it is in English, and is written phonetically in identical style.

It is of course possible that DaveM and the moderators of this vile blog-space - which has made it its mission to attack Islam and Muslims in whatever underhand methods it can get away with - deliberately skewed the word ‘Lobby’ to turn it into some other word and make it seem as though it means ‘evil/noxious’, in order to portray not only Mohammed Sawalha, but BMI and all the projects that Mr. Sawalha is linked to, as ‘Jew-haters’ and ‘anti-Semitic’.

This was immediately picked up by the likes of Melanie Phillips who wrote in The Spectator, quoting this error and using it as fact to further her campaign to demonise an individual who has done for community relations and cultural dialogue far more than she can ever lay claim to.

Anas Altikriti, spokesman of BMI, commented earlier: ‘This particular blog-space and its moderators are nonentities and insignificant. However, its danger lies in that in the past some corners of our mainstream media have picked up on its drivel and used it as fact.

This is another example of not only very basic incompetence at play, but pure evil that sees no shame or wrong in plainly lying for the purpose of demonising certain individuals and organisations, regardless of reality or facts”.

BMI have alerted its legal advisors to this matter and will be monitoring the blog-site in question as well as any quoting of this error by any other media outlet, and will be pursuing measures to bring those who do to account.

Hilariously, their line is that we have:

“deliberately skewed the word ‘Lobby’ to turn it into some other word and make it seem as though it means ‘evil/noxious’”

They could have said “Oh, he’s been misquoted by Al Jazeera - in Arabic, “Jewish evil” sounds really like “Jewish Lobby”. Or even “It’s just a spelling mistake - there are only a few letters’ difference between “evil” and “lobby”.

Here is a screen shot of the Al Jazeera article. It is very clear that the phrase “Jewish Lobby” did not appear in the original article. Until it was amended:

So, now I’m being threatened with legal action. That’s always a good tactic: as David Irving discovered.

Given that the BMI is the sister organisation of Hamas, and Mohammad Sawalha has been identified by the BBC as a senior Hamas activist, I should be grateful that they’re not threatening to send round “martyrs” to explode themselves in front of me.

Put it this way. There’s clear evidence what the Al Jazeera article originally said. It would be wholly unsurprising that a man who is apparently a Hamas activist  would give an interview in Arabic in which he railed against “Jewish evil”. That is, after all, one of Hamas’ favourite themes.

And if the argument is that he was demonstrating against the “Jewish Community” and the “Jewish Lobby” rather than “Jewish Evil”… well, that’s not a great defence, is it?