Words Fail Me
God almighty. Sometimes things are just too surprising. I was dismayed (from afar) when Galloway was elected – but I clearly wasn’t dismayed enough.
Two of your beautiful daughters are in the hands of foreigners – Jerusalem and Baghdad. The foreigners are doing to your daughters as they will. The daughters are crying for help, and the Arab world is silent. And some of them are collaborating with the rape of these two beautiful Arab daughters. Why? Because they are too weak and too corrupt to do anything about it.
It’s hard to know where to begin. Foreigners? Daughters? Your daughters? Your beautiful daughters? The foreigners are doing to your daughters as they will? Rape? It’s difficult not to scream. It’s sheer bloody Julius Streicherism, it’s lynch-mob language, it’s misogynist sexist racist communalist slavering garbage. And this guy is an MP!
We live in very strange times. Harry’s Place (which is where I saw this) has the comments I would make if I had the time, as well as a few I wouldn’t say – but there is far more agreement than usual, in that thread.
Here’s how Alan Ryan, Professor of Philosophy and Warden of New College Oxford, and regular columnist for the Times Higher Educational Supplement, introduced George Galloway to American intellectuals in the New York Review of Books in June:
“George Galloway… defeated the Labour candidate in the East End of London on a platform of respect for Muslims.”
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/18078
Funny way to describe Galloway’s populist (not to say crude) rhetoric directed largely at the 40 percent Muslim population of the east London constituency of Bethnal Green and Bow (where the defeated Labour candidate was half-Jewish). Another instance of “le trahison des clercs”.
I am suspicious of MEMRI’s selection policy. If I was to form the Northern Europe Research Institute, trawl the British press (yea, even unto the Guardian) only ever picking out the most racist and bigoted comments and articles (and there are plenty to choose from), translate them into Arabic, and publish them in Cairo, I bet I could get Egyptians really angry.
Don’t get me wrong – there’s all kinds of poisonous shite like the above in newspapers and on telly in the Middle East, and it needs to be opposed. It’s just I have no faith in MEMRI to pass on a representative sample.
Forgot to say – I’m not a fan of Galloway either, as a Google search on “vote for sister Yvonne” will demonstrate.
So, Chris, in the rest of Galloway’s appalling rants we can expect to find conciliatory passages to calm the angry feelings his words are likely to arouse? Don’t these several quoted passages from different broadcasts tell us all we need to know about what Galloway is telling Arab audiences? As apologetics go, this one is pretty feeble.
As to selective translation, you can hear for yourself. From http://hurryupharry.bloghouse.net/cgi-bin/mt-pong.cgi/3824
(Scroll down to “McHawHaw on tour”)
“And you don’t even have to trust the Israelis. You can hear what he’s saying in English.”
Chris writes:
>Don’t get me wrong – there’s all kinds of poisonous shite like the above in newspapers and on telly in the Middle East, and it needs to be opposed. It’s just I have no faith in MEMRI to pass on a representative sample.< Yes, and in this case the poisonous shite is coming from one George Galloway, MP. And no, we won’t get you wrong, the first part of your message shows that you’re desperately trying to find some mitigation for his appalling broadcasts on Arab TV.
Chris, I exclude myself from Allen’s ‘we’. I understand that you are suspicious of MEMRI rather than apologetic for Galloway.
Mike S has summed up my position admirably. I have been opposing Galloway and his ilk in the anti-war movement for years. This rant isn’t really anything different from what he’s been coming out with for a long time.
Oh dear. This is really like the kind of trainwreck one just can’t take ones eyes off, is it?
Anyone have any crisps?
Merlijn
Chris, if you weren’t trying to find *some* mitigation, why did you jump in so quickly with suggestions of tendentiously selective reporting? It was obviously more important to you than the atrocious stuff Galloway is peddling. Your first words were, “I am suspicious of MEMRI’s selection policy,” whereas most people’s first reaction would be that they are aghast at Galloway’s fanning the flames.
>It’s just I have no faith in MEMRI to pass on a representative sample.< Given the several fairly extensive quotes from different broadcasts, with that argument you could contend that Hitler has been given a bum deal by mischievous folk who quote selectively from Mein Kampf. (And just for the record, I’m not putting Galloway in the same category as Hitler!)
“It’s just I have no faith in MEMRI to pass on a representative sample.”
I may be wrong, but I thought the point here was not so much whether these quotes were in any way typical or representative of Galloway or anyone else, but whether (as no one seems to be doubting anymore) British MP Galloway did in fact make the statements. If he did, certain conclusions can be drawn which are in no way affected by the fact that he may also have said less inflammatory things or that others (from either side) may have made statements equally (or even more) inflammatory.
The search for a source that is “objective” is futile; most will either have MEMRI’s slant or the opposite. Accuracy in the reporting of what they do select is another story. Again, one may disagree with me, but it seems that neither to report nor to emphasise the inflammatory passages attributed to an elected representative like Galloway, made to an audience outside Britain, would indicate a pretty extreme bias going in the opposite direction to that claimed for MEMRI.
Alan, your failure to say that the sun rises in the East shows you are obviously a flat-earther. See how easy it is?
So – is the only acceptable response to this information to join in the Eleven o clock hate, vying with one another to condemn GG in more and more outlandlish and entertaining terms? If you want that kind of feeding frenzy, Harry’s is the place for you. Smells like group-think to me.
People who hang round on these comments boards should know by now that I’m not a fan of RESPECT, or any aspect of their world-view. I chipped in because essentially, everyhing that needs to be said about GG on the blogosphere has already been said, whereas I don’t think that everything that needs to be said about MEMRI has.
Thought experiment – if a random sample of arab people listen to a translation of Talk Sport for a day, would their feelings towards the West be more or less fearful?
Chris writes:
>So – is the only acceptable response to this information to join in the Eleven o clock hate, vying with one another to condemn GG in more and more outlandlish and entertaining terms? If you want that kind of feeding frenzy, Harry’s is the place for you. Smells like group-think to me.< Nothing I wrote is compatible with this response, so I won’t bother to reply. But I will make a couple more points on Chris’s previous messages. How can the suggestion that the quotes may not have been representative of what Galloway was saying in those broadcasts not be some kind of attempt at mitigation, even if that was subordinate to your main point? In your anxiety to pursue your own agenda you evidently failed to see the logic of your own words, and are now backtracking because it implied something you didn’t mean to say. Ophelia’s posting was to highlight Galloway’s dangerous rantings, but you immediately sidetracked the issue with your own agenda. You want to have it both ways for the purpose of pursuing this: Hey, these quotes may not be representative of what Galloway was saying, and anyway, they are only typical examples of the kind of stuff from Galloway that I’ve condemned in the past. Anyway, let’s get back to Ophelia’s concern that a British MP is using lynch-mob language. Far from joining in a feeding frenzy (hardly characteristic of this blog), readers had no time to make considered comments on Ophelia’s posting before it was diverted to a different issue.
“This rant isn’t really anything different from what he’s been coming out with for a long time.”
I confess to not being an inveterate GG watcher, but it did seem to be a lot more blatant than earlier quotes I’d seen. I’m prepared to be enlightened if he has long been coming out with stuff so strong. I would also differentiate between extreme anti-war rhetoric delivered at home to his own public and an appeal to citizens of other countries calculated to inflame the emotions against the country he ostensibly represents. Does anyone disagree that likening cities to raped daughters is just about the ultimate button-pusher?
Merlijn, I seem to be out of crisps, but will pop out and get some pronto…
Stewart, GG’s ‘indefagitable’ and ‘wolves’ speeches were delivered in the same geographical area, with the same message and the same intended audience. Put him in the middle east and suck up to him, and he gets a rush of blood to head.
Alan, the point about MEMRI was a general one, not specific to this issue. By trawling all the worst from the Arab media, they help to (intend to? – can’t be proven) perpetuate an image of it as exclusively populated by foaming loons like GG. This is entirely representative of GG – I wonder if it’s entirely representative of political discourse in the middle east.
My apologies if, by failing to respond to this by writing ‘yes, _isn’t_ he a bastard!!!’ I have somehow ruined your morning. Ophelia’s outrage is proper – why waste time ‘me too’ ing it?
Anyone hear Anne Cryer yesterday…?
“Does anyone disagree that likening cities to raped daughters is just about the ultimate button-pusher?”
That’s just it. Especially ‘your beautiful Arab daughters’ – and then adding that you’re too weak to fight back. The ultimate button-pusher cubed, I should think.
I’m just ignorant – I didn’t know he’d been saying stuff like that all along.
But I’ve said here somewhere before that I’m suspicious of Memri myself. But however selective they are, this one seems worth noticing.
So what’s Galloway’s position on this then? I mean, I always thought that he mostly went along with the Respect/SWP line that opposing the war in Iraq was about opposing Western Imperialism.
But here he seems to have gone beyond that into blatant pan-Arab nationalism.
And what’s with that daughters metaphor? It doesn’t even casually hold up, it simply seems designed to be inflammatory and to pander to a certain paternalistic mindset.
But then I guess by crossing the line (along with Respect), to say that the Iraqi resistance is ok because it is a national liberation struggle, he had already gone beyond the pale.
The 11o’clock hate is good, Chris. Makes it sound like Orwell, doesn’t it? Which is what you naturally assume all of us are indulging in, while Galloway, whose words are his words whether read through MEMRI or not, is being presented as the poor hated one.
Tell me, word by word, what is there to defend in this? Tell my why I should not be a little frightened to see supposedly intelligent people like you picking nits off the ‘hated one’s’ frangible and brittle skin? The last time language like this was defended by supposedly decent people was when most of my family died.
It’s not about ‘hating’ Galloway. It’s about people like you who worry me more, because, despite the protestations of being anti-Galloway, when it comes to genuine hatred, as expressed by Galloway, you shift attention to MEMRI or indeed anything else to avoid considering it.
Chris writes:
>Alan, the point about MIMRI was a general one, not specific to this issue.< That’s precisely my point. You immediately jumped in to suggest that Galloway may have been (at least partly) misrepresented without any attempt to check if your suspicions about the Middle East Media Research Institute had any relevance in this instance. There evidently is nothing to justify your suspicions in this case, so it has no relevance to Ophelia’s posting. But at the sight of the letters MIMRI you just had to express your antipathy to MIMRI irrespective of its relevance here, even though it led to your making the illogical statements I’ve already noted. >My apologies if, by failing to respond to this by writing ‘yes, _isn’t_ he a bastard!!!’ I have somehow ruined your morning. Ophelia’s outrage is proper – why waste time ‘me too’ ing it?< Please don’t impute the simplistic grooves that your mind apparently follows to me. You might note that the first response to Ophelia’s posting was one from me that was directly relevant to her piece without saying anything like “Right on, Ophelia”.
Sorry, for MIMRI read MEMRI!
To be fair, I really don’t think Chris is defending Galloway. He’s been a strong fan of B&W’s for a very long time, and those two things just wouldn’t go together!
And I’m uneasy about Memri myself, as I’ve said here before at some point (don’t remember when). I’ve been puzzling a bit about why – is it just irrational? Why does it make me uneasy? I’m not sure, but I think the one-note aspect is too reminiscent of hate-mongering and especially of working up. So it worries me. I think that’s it. Hatreds can be worked up. And even if they are based on true claims…they can be dangerous. Just as we’ve been discussing lately – grievances can be genuine grievances and still have horrible despicable consequences if people decide to get revenge for them.
It’s a fine line; sometimes a real danger demands a one-note treatment; but…it can be risky, too. So I’m not a bit sure what I think about Memri, I’m just uneasy about it. I don’t think Chris is all wrong to be uneasy about it too.
But I posted the Galloway link anyway, because no media outlets had it. That’s peculiar in itself. Why isn’t it all over the UK papers?
Since OB’s is the last voice (so far) in this thread, I’ll react mainly to what she wrote, with, I suppose, two agreements and a qualification. I remained (I hope) moderate in my comments above because, despite thinking it was questionable to react to Galloway’s remarks primarily with suspicion regarding one of the sources for his undisputed words, I did take note that Chris was more than once explicit about his opposition to GG. Looking back at his posts, he at no point says anything in GG’s favour, though it’s easy to see why all of us (myself included) got the impression he was being soft on him, with his reservations about those doing the exposing.
As for MEMRI, it’s easy to see what the slant is. Inasmuch as they are actually filling a gap by making materials in other languages available, they are doing a service. True, they seem to be much weaker on coverage of the Israeli far right, but if all they want to do is fill gaps, that’s fine with me; one can get plenty of exposes on the settlement movement from Haaretz in English. I wouldn’t advise treating them as a balanced picture of the whole region, but until someone comes along and reveals inaccuracies, especially those that could be agenda-driven, they certainly have their uses.
Lastly, yes, me too; I was staggered already this morning to see that practically nobody else thought this whole thing was worth reporting. Even if it is GG’s standard line, at a time of bombings in London one would think someone in a position of authority in the media would think it worth informing the British public that one of their MPs is more or less applauding the killers and doing his damndest to work their successors into a frenzy.
No, Ophelia,no Chris, I don’t go for that argument at all. When Galloway says what he has no doubt said, that is not the best moment to be diverting attention to the question of a source that may well have any of the you apply to it (frankly, I don’t know how far the charge is justified, and it might be), though these are qualities that may equally apply to other sources too in their different ways, even the BBC occasionally.
But that is not the point since you can hear him saying what the site says he says. Don’t you care more about that? It’s a great pity if you don’t.
Yes, George, I do care more about that. That’s why I posted the post! I’m staggered by what Galloway said, and staggered that it’s not in the newspapers.
Thanks for the Memris
OK Merlin. I hadn’t forgotten Galloway’s journey, but this zombie splatter is still pretty horrible. And I appreciate that Ophelia and Chris do not support GG – it is clear that they don’t – but I do still feel that to bring up the issue of MEMRI at this moment (and I don’t know the truth about MEMRI personally) is diversionary. It’s about not liking the look of someone who has brought you news that you know to be true. First consider the news. Chat about the messenger afterwards in your own time. Because Galloway’s own excuse will be, and was in the past, that it’s an Israeli source. In other words it is lies from hell.
MEMRI is a different conversation, that’s all.
Well put, George.
Scary question, in the light of the last couple of comments: if this was predictable, anyone care to say where GG goes from here? Is there a limit and if so, where? Better question: what will it take for him to have overstepped the limit in a legal sense? I mean, one of way of paraphrasing his comments might be to say “Come on fellas, you’re not hitting us hard enough.”
Grrr…. “or any indication that they find Galloway’s rhetoric as appalling” – make that, _less_ appalling.
See, as a Murkan, I’m not as familiar with GG’s record as I could be. I have certainly seen the fawning on Saddam reported many times, but – that still left room for surprise at what he said July 31. I’m naive, no doubt.
But George – why would I be trying to create a diversion from my own post? I’m the one who posted on the subject in the first place! On Galloway, not on Memri. If I’d wanted a diversion, I wouldn’t have mentioned it at all!
It’s partly an epistemic question, for one thing – and in that sense it’s not diversionary but central. If one’s source is not reliable, then however central a story might be if it’s true, it still needs caution – in case it’s not in fact true. That thought also needs caution, in case one’s suspicion is ill-founded, and in case an unreliable source is occasionally (or even often) reliable – and so on.
In short, I just don’t agree that it’s necessarily diversionary to consider the source. And I certainly don’t agree that I’m being insufficiently hard on Galloway! I posted the story the moment I saw it at Harry’s Place – even with the very swiftness of thought.
So, the Telegraph, the Beeb, and the Scotsman have the story now. It certainly took them long enough. That seems odd. Why so slow?
I am not suggesting for a moment you are trying Ophelia, and indeed Chris. I just think it is a diversion at this most specific moment (of time, for lack of any other thing it could be a specific moment of), or that it serves as the (not you) purpose of diversion. All for caution, but how much caution does one need in this case? I’ll shut up now and go quietly. Promise.
No need to go, George, quietly or otherwise! I was just saying.
All my instincts of course are to use no caution at all, at least about things like this – so I make myself think again. (And then, I couldn’t actually hear what GG was saying – I tried, but the voiceover translation prevented, and I gave up.)
That’s one reason I was impatient for the Major Media to run the story – precisely so that the diversionary aspect could be dropped.
A colleague of GG’s says he revels in being awful – so I suppose we’re giving him what he wants. Now, that’s annoying. Dang Bre’r Rabbit.
Ophelia writes
>If one’s source is not reliable, then however central a story might be if it’s true, it still needs caution – in case it’s not in fact true. […] In short, I just don’t agree that it’s necessarily diversionary to consider the source.< “in case it’s not in fact true” – that’s the whole crux of this discussion, Ophelia. My response to your second sentence above is: No, not in general, but it was diversionary in this specific case because all Chris had to do was a minimal amount of investigation to see/hear that the report *was* accurate *before* suggesting that Galloway might have been misrepresented.
John C. Halasz – I stand corrected. Thank you.
On the other hand, there is no such person as V.I. Lenin. Lenin was just Lenin, as Cher is just Cher. Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov is the guy wot had the initials.
Sure there is, OB. Checked my copy of “Der Imperialismus…”. Says at the beginning: “Russischer Originaltitel: V.I. Lenin – Imperializm, kak vyscaya stadia kapitalizma”. So at least to some extent, he used the original initials with the pseudonym (though, didn’t he used N. Lenin too to some extent?).
Similarly Leon Trotsky (Lev Davidovich Bronshtein), Josef Stalin (Josef Vissarionovitch Dzugashvili), etcetera.
Really? Huh. I know I’ve read in various places that it’s a solecism to call Lenin V. I. Lenin, and that he never called himself that. But what you say certainly calls that into question, Merlijn.
N. Lenin – yes, I think so. That was a small pseudonym-joke, wasn’t it? Short for Not Lenin. (For Russian for Not Lenin – which is not [I assume] Nyet Lenin but – whatever it is.)
OB – now that I’m thinking about it, I think it may rather mean “Nikolai Lenin”, a name he took at some point. But what with the attrition my library has suffered over the years, I can’t be sure.
I dunno, I go off on holiday (with the kids by the beach, if you’re interested) and when I get back the thread is still going. Way to go, thread!
Alan E – my comment was not meant to suggest that MEMRI is unreliable (it’s run by people who aren’t idiots, so I imagine that it’s spot-on), rather that its sampling is unrepresentative. It was intended in defence of the Middle Eastern media, not in defence of GG. I regret if anyone who read it misinterpreted it. I remain convinced of my right to write what I want, here and elsewhere, without reference to the Glorious Loyalty Oath Crusade of the moment.
Apropos of nothing, a few weeks ago I was doing some filing and noticed a copy of a letter I sent to a UK university in 1996, asking them to ban Hizb-ut-Tahrir from speaking. Doubtless y’all have a similar record.
I am interested! (Means you weren’t in the library, for one thing. oh, hahahahaha – I’m so funny.)
Well done on Hizb-ut-Tahrir. As far as I know I’d never so much as heard of them until the Aslam thing. Ignorant of me.