Tuesday, October 03, 2006

No Excuses for Aaronovitch

Aaronovitch Watch called it “Euston: the movie”, which is a reasonable summary, although it never reached beyond the intellectual level of a pantomime. David Aaronovitch’s programme, No Excuses for Terror, was the whole absurd routine one more time – the same questions, the same pat answers, from the same monotonic commentators. The only novelty came from unintentionally hilarious tough liberal cut-n-paste rhetoric – that Hizbollah is “the armed wing of Iran” was the insight from geopolitical heavyweight Kim Howells.

As usual, government propagandising was portrayed as marginalised truth telling. According to Aaronovitch, his collection of freelance Blairites “do sometimes struggle to get a hearing.” But don't worry, because “today all that changes” – as if regurgitation of Tony's conference speeches is some sort of samizdat dissent.

Although the documentary was not primarily a defence of Iraq War (decentists have largely given up on that) Aaronovitch did give it a go. He did this by ignoring everything happening there. In April 2004 Oliver Kamm declared that “[t]here is no development that would cause me to conclude I was wrong to support war. It’s not that type of issue.” In other words, the horrors suffered by Iraqis since the invasion are irrelevant. In the same vein, Aaronovitch’s only bid to defend the war was a melodramatic false dilemma that ignored current reality:

“I defy anyone to stand at the edge of a mass grave like that and say Saddam was a good man, why did you get rid of him?”

This is an only slightly more dishonest version of what Blair has been saying for years. In 2004 he told the Labour conference that he could not “sincerely” apologise (as if sincerity had ever bothered him before) for removing Saddam Hussein because it was axiomatic that “[t]he world is a better place with Saddam in prison not in power”, irrespective of tens of thousands of civilian deaths.

This was all Aaronovitch could manage: an attack on something not even slightly resembling anything said by any serious Western opponent of the war. Even George Galloway, who of course featured prominently in Aaronovitch’s stock footage, and who was taken – as usual – as being representative of the entire anti-war Left, said no such thing. And if he had it would have made no difference at all to the morality of launching the Iraq War.

Yet Aaronovitch harped relentlessly on that favourite decentist theme – the shocking alignment between the anti-war Left and “fascist” Muslims exemplified by Respect, as if discrediting Stop the War marchers somehow legitimises what they oppose. On this subject we heard “Professor Alan Johnson”, who apparently makes up for his lack of a doctorate by launching pompous websites (see “Unite Against Terror” and “Democritiya”). Naturally enough, since he’s a full-time decentist, all we got from this academic titan was the usual boilerplate about why people oppose American wars and Israeli oppression: they are instinctively anti-American; they think they’re standing up against imperialism; etc. – all treated as revealed wisdom, without any evidential underpinning.

So, quite naturally, opposition to the Israeli occupation of Palestine, and its attack on Lebanon, could only be irrational anti-Americanism born of an inability to confront the new deadly terrorist threat. Because Israel is an unfortunate “lightning conductor”, it attracts an unfair share of criticism. “Increasingly what has become the... a sort of sewage of the fringes of the far right and far left... political discourse concerning Israel have now become increasingly... have contaminated mainstream political discourse”, opined Shalom Lappin. It is apparently “far right” or “far left” the action of “sewage” to object to Israel killing a thousand Lebanese civilians.

Decentists' principles are rarely universal, however much they claim otherwise. Take Jane Ashworth. Another co-organiser of the Unite Against Terror wheeze, according to the Democratiya website “Jane is a lifelong Labour Party member and a graduate of it’s [sic] youth and student movements”. She is a “consultant specialising in working class access to sport”. She’s only slightly less qualified than Alan Johnson, then, to pronounce on what the Left must do. “The Left should have a moral benchmark,” she tells us. “One of the things where we should draw that line is around the bombing of civilians.”

That is, bombing by Muslim terrorists – not Israel. She somehow failed to draw this line when Israel bombed civilians in Lebanon. Her “Engage” website (a nascent UK equivalent of the ADL, it would seem) instead ran criticism of Jews who objected to the bombing of civilians in Lebanon. Thus does Engage battle “contemporary antisemitism”.

Aside from ceaseless ululations over Europe's rampant anti-Semitism and the “existential threat” facing Israel, another major preoccupation of the Bush-boosting Left is denial of any causal link between the Iraq War and terrorist attacks on the West. Aaronovitch's entirely unbiased framing of the problem went like this:

“The apologists for terror state it as a fact that only a fool would deny that 7/7 was primarily caused by Blair's adventure in Iraq. Now, that's the same as saying that without Iraq it wouldn't have happened.”

He then goes on to recite the standard list of Islamist terrorist actions predating the war, thus supposedly disproving the link. The same day, Blair was conveying this view – recall that its proponents have struggled to get a hearing – to the Labour conference:

“This terrorism isn't our fault. We didn't cause it. It's not the consequence of foreign policy. It's an attack on our way of life. It's global. It has an ideology. It killed nearly 3,000 people including over 60 British on the streets of New York before war in Afghanistan or Iraq was even thought of.”

It is wrong to assert that war in Iraq hadn't been thought of in 2001. Several key members of the Bush administration had signed a letter in 1998 demanding exactly that. But Aaronovitch anyway immediately undercut his case by switching to Dr Martin Navias, who revealed that al Qaida's stated purpose was to drive US troops from the Arabian peninsula – troops that had been there since 1990, before any of his exemplary incidents. Furthermore, regardless of preexisting grievances, or whether Iraq was the primary cause of 7/7, the Iraq War is widely recognised by analysts as having exacerbated the Islamist terrorism problem that Blair claims to be fighting. If anybody who holds that view is an “apologist for terror”, then these include at a minimum the US and UK intelligence services, Chatham House, and a third of the UK population in the immediate aftermath.

Decentists get round this basic fact by exploiting the ambiguity of the word “understanding”. “Understanding in terms of justification is dangerous territory”, because according to Aaronovitch one might conclude that 7/7 was “our fault, or Tony Blair's”. Except he immediately draws from this, as Blair does, that “understanding” the London bombings in any sense is disallowed. To point out the obvious fact – that they were indeed linked to Iraq – is not to understand “in terms of justification”; it is to understand in terms of causes. This is what rational people do, and it has no connection with apologias for terrorism. Indeed, this principle is selectively accepted by decentists: according to them, the recent attacks on Lebanon could only be understood, and justified, by reference to Hizbollah actions before Israel began its bombing.

The Iraq War was right because some of its opponents are wrong. Bombing civilians is always wrong, but not when Israel does it. Our foreign policy has nothing to do with terrorism, but it will make us safer from it. The value of this documentary was in collecting together all the standard decentist positions. By doing so, Aaronovitch neatly illustrated their lack of coherence. That they make no sense is unsurprising, given that they are a rebadged selection of Republican talking points grouped according to whether they can be sold under the Left banner, however desperate the accompanying arguments.

13 Comments:

Blogger Captain Cabernet said...

A good review when it sticks to the substance, but as a prof who lacks
a doctorate himself, I rather flinched at the attack on ANTMJ and also at the suggestion that Jane Ashworth is "slightly less qualified than Alan Johnson, then, to pronounce on what the Left must do". Since when did people need special qualifications to give their opinions on what
the left should do?

7:40 am  
Blogger StuartA said...

Hmm. I did wonder about that myself, actually. As a non-prof. with a doctorate, my prejudices are naturally different. I honestly never met a professor without one. But you've confirmed for me that it does, or can, read as unwarranted intellectual snobbery.

As for Ashworth, my one defence is that she was on television, laying down rules for the Left, whereas you are not (as far as I know). Her patronising tone so irked me, in combination with her hypocrisy, that I'm afraid I shot straight into "who the hell are you?" mode.

Overall, I agree. I still regard these people as jumped-up non-entities, but their CVs are not the relevant issue. I wouldn't want to imply that academic background bears on anybody's ability to contribute to political discussion. I plead rhetorical excess.

10:39 am  
Blogger james higham said...

...Furthermore, regardless of preexisting grievances, or whether Iraq was the primary cause of 7/7, the Iraq War is widely recognised by analysts as having exacerbated the Islamist terrorism problem that Blair claims to be fighting...

The point the Muslim girls made today and which I wrote up this evening was that the Arabs in themselves are a major problem, that it is not Islam, that agent provocateurs stirred up the trouble - namely the Finance and China but that if all withdrew and Israel was still left there in place, it would still be a moot point whether there'd be trouble. There would be, due to the fixation with the Canaan/Israel usurpation sticking point and the bloody-minded nature of both races.

8:28 pm  
Blogger StuartA said...

Supposing I accept your premise, I don't see that it has a bearing on the Iraq War. Given a situation in which tensions existed, this act exacerbated them. It increased the likelihood of terrorism. That is surely a bad thing, regardless of the risks before.

8:47 pm  
Blogger james higham said...

It doesn't have a bearing - they're two separate issues but both do exist. And it's not just oil and not just Club of Paris and Bavaria but some ultra-loony reason deep in the masonic soul behind this whole business, realizing itself through the Finance. Moriah Avenging Wind is one aspect of this complex biz which also allowed Himmler to accompany a known Jewish financier [one of the 12] out of Germany immediately prior to WW2, plus the Shanghai Triad connection, hence the name of my site. All interconnected. What we have here is some totally out-of-the-brain stuff which likes to manifest itself through religious conflict. It never manifests as a trade or commodities war, does it? Always religious. Now why would that be so?

6:28 am  
Blogger StuartA said...

I don't really know what you're referring to.

Religion has probably always been a tool of those in power. Certainly there are plenty of examples over the last two thousand years. But I don't understand the references to triads or masons or Jews. I don't believe any of these groups has serious power outside of corporations and state institutions.

10:21 am  
Anonymous CW said...

Stuart -

I tried to send you an email re Kamm but got a non-delivery warning. Have you abandoned your blog? Or is it just a hiatus?

5:54 am  
Blogger StuartA said...

Hi. The blog's not abandoned, but I've had other priorities over the past few months. I really should have posted about it.

I've reactivated the email address. I obviously welcome all comments, particularly those on that intellectual colossus of our age, Oliver Kamm.

5:28 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

tl;dr

3:28 pm  
Blogger janewangleilei said...

You can have a look at it.
jordan shoes
Wow.
newest jordans
jordan 7
Wonderful!
air yeezy
jordan true flight
If you like,you can contact us.
jordan 3
jordan 4
We offer different styles.
jordan 1
jordan 2
Thanks.
jordan 5
jordan ajf shoes
There are cheap shoes to choose
nike footwear
jordan flight 45
Good quality with low price.
air jordan 2010
Air Jordan 2009
Enjoy it!
jumpman
nike trainers

3:58 am  
Blogger 贝贝 said...

The Tax Return Crack-Up<3>
Granted, there are usuallyMicrosoft Office 2010write-ups when presidential contenders make their tax returns available, but the coverage falls far short of the Office 2010
full court press (pardon the pun) that the Clintons have received. What's Microsoft Office 2007different now?Office 2007One possibility is that most upper middle class Democrats, and therefore most Microsoft OfficeOffice 2007 keyeditors and reporters of our nation's big papers as well as Office 2007 downloadtelevision producers, are Obama supporters who think that Hillary should hurry up Office 2007 Professionaland drop out of the race already.Microsoft outlook
Microsoft outlook 2010Whom elite liberals are pulling for really does shape political coverage in ways

9:55 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is a really quality post.I find this information through Google.Great job.
Now it will be very cold in winter, in order to keep warm yourself, moncler company has provide jackets for you, so it is better to own moncler yourselif as soon as possible. Eeveryone love fashion clothing, polo ralph lauren is very popular all over world, that is my dream to get one.We know Ray Ban by America soldier, all of them wear ray ban sunglasses when they walk on the road, it is fashionable for you. Most of people like to wear jeans, it is very modern when wearing true religion jeans in the street.

2:45 pm  
Blogger Cheapsocceruniforms said...

There are many brand from France, also including herve leger, and most of womens stars love wearing herve leger dress when they join in some important party. Now polo ralph lauren is very popular with youthful people, everyone want to get ralph lauren polo shirts, there are lots of online shop which are ralph lauren polo outlet, true religion jeans outlet, it will be convenient for us.

9:44 am  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home