Back Towards The Locus

Andrew Roberts is an odd fish; a pilot fish to be precise. He’s devoted not one but two recent Telegraph columns to how nathty the world’s been to George W. Bush, and these adoring snatches for the ex-President’s heels aren’t surprising when you consider things like this…

“Last month, a little-known British historian named Andrew Roberts was swept into the White House for a three-hour-long hug. He lunched with George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, huddled alone with the president in the Oval Office, and was rapturously lauded by him as “great.” Roberts was so fawned over that his wife, Susan Gilchrist, told the London Observer, “I thought I had a crush on him, but it’s nothing like the crush President Bush has on him.”

These are, Roberts proudly states, people that he “like[s], admire[s] and think[s] are a force for good in the world“. Indeed, he’s so thrilled that they’ve read one of his books that he gives the fact pride of place in his biography. The Tatler has commented that “[h]is adolescent crush on the upper classes is matched by virtually no one else in this country“.

Yesterday, sucking close to the imperial shark, Roberts saw fit to applaud the BBC for refusing to broadcast the Gaza appeal, and criticised the DEC for being “mired in anti-Israeli assumptions“.

“Numerous Oxfam press statements included language such as: “The international community must not stand aside and allow Israeli leaders to commit massive and disproportionate violence against Gazan civilians in violation of international law.””

Which is, indeed, a lucid and succint point (though I’d question how violence against citizens could be anything but disproportionate). I’m not sure that Roberts shares my approval, however, though he doesn’t explain exactly why the statement’s mistaken.

Instead, he appears to be insinuating that such statements make Oxfam a political organisation, not a charitable organisation. Firstly, as I’ve mentioned, they’re evidently right; secondly, they’re only one charity out of thirteen and thirdly, the advert itself is apolitical.

“Violence against Israelis, including deaths, are virtually ignored by Oxfam officials, who have referred to “collective punishment illegal under international humanitarian law yet tolerated by the international community”.”

Firstly, this would be unsurprising even if it were true, as Oxfam works in areas of poverty. As they say, when conflict strikes poorer nations and regions “many face ruined livelihoods, broken families and poor health as they attempt to rebuild lives with few resources“. Besides, it isn’t true. Roberts is lying…

“This call [for a formal ceasefire] is even more urgently needed after the recent attack on students at the Jewish religious school in Jerusalem that claimed the lives of 8 students including 3 children.”

Having failed to discredit Oxfam – and, by association, the other charities of the DEC – Roberts gets all practical on our asses…

“The final issue is the fraught one of the practicability of actually distributing the aid on the ground.”

Indeed. One can hardly expect aid organisations to know when it’s suitable to distribute aid; English historians are far more capable.

“For those of us who reject such gross ideological bias, which absolves the Hamas leadership for a confrontation which they openly sought, such statements by charities are unacceptable and should not be rewarded by the BBC.”

Yes, except that it’s not an appeal for Oxfam – lovely though their staff have always been also to me – but for the people that they exist to help.

Roberts doesn’t care for them, it seems. Not only has he written a hatchet-job, he’s written a hatchet-job that’s so thin, lazy and dishonest it burrows through the barrel, goes under the ground and scrapes the tectonic plates beneath the crust. He, like so many other vapid opinion columnists, seems to resent the fact the powerful institutions that’ve nurtured him can be poked at by mere people.

Mark Thompson, Director General of the BBC, has given a skillfully bland defence of the nauseating decision not to air a DEC appeal for Gaza. He argues that “us[ing] pictures which are the same or similar to those we would be using in our news programmes” and soliciting donations “could be interpreted as taking a political stance on an ongoing story“.

I suspect that what he fears is the DEC description of the situation as a “humanitarian crisis“. In the face of aid organisations, the UN and, well, reality, Tzpini Livni has claimed that there is “no humanitarian crisis” in Gaza. That’s, apparently, what “impartiality” means for the BBC: that one can’t use facts for fear of contradicting lies.

I’d be interesting to know the motivation behind this squalid little farce. Daniel has noted the Sachsgate fall-out, but I’m not sure that the same feverish moral panic would apply (Melanie “I Spend My Saturdays Screaming From The Cliff-Tops” Phillips would obviously disagree). Bishop Hill has an interesting theory that the Beeb are fearing the Balen Report. The report, which examined the BBC’s coverage of the Israel-Palestine conflict, was initially blocked from publication, but the House of Lords are apparently expected to rule that it should be available under the Freedom of Information Act. If it indicated that there was institutional anti-Israel bias, Thompson & co. could always say “Woah, there! Didn’t you see the bitching that we got for this?”.

Still, this seems – while entertainingly devious – rather unlikely. For one thing, independent panels have already suggested that the BBC is anti-Palestinian, and so even if this report strongly disagreed (and I think it’d have to be fairly imaginative to) the issue would simply be divided, debated and forgotten about until the next report. I suspect that stupidity has a fairly weighty hand in this. Yes, showing the weight of Palestinian suffering would nudge the viewer towards a certain conclusion, but without the weight of Palestinian suffering there isn’t much to show.

Here’s the DEC appeal on Gaza…

After an 18 month blockade of Gaza and three weeks of heavy shelling the humanitarian crisis in Gaza is now completely overwhelming.

• Donate online to the DEC’s Gaza Crisis now>
  Thousands of people are struggling to survive with many having lost their homes and most down to their last supplies of food and only limited amounts of fresh drinking water.
• Just £25 can buy warm blankets for 8 children>
• Just £50 can provide a Food parcel for a family for one month
• Electricity – supplies to Gaza are erratic at best with 75% of the area cut off completely. There is a significant public health risk arising out of the almost collapse of Gaza’s water and sewage system, the running of which is dependent on electricity.
• Water – Around 500,000 people are without running water with 37% of Gaza’s water wells not working effectively and fuel reserves depleted due to restrictions on access and damage to pipes.
• At least 412 Children have been killed and 1,855 injured
• 60% of the population is living in poverty
• 1.1 million people are dependent upon aid to survive.
• Health – The capacity of the health system has been significantly reduced due to the damage of at least 21 clinics. Ten primary health care clinics are functioning as emergency clinics and hospitals and intensive care units continue to treat the mass casualties.

And here’s another, from a man that I usually have no time for (actually, that’s a lie, I’ve spent far too much time wittering about his numerous irrelevant faults)…

1) Secure a vehicle, fill it with aid and get sponsorship to cover its costs to Gaza (approximately £3,000 for fuel and expenses). Many people are donating vehicles to leave there.

2) Money: please organise fundraisers, collections, donations which the convoy will get directly to the people of Gaza.

Cheques should be made payable to “Lifeline for Gaza” and sent to

Lifeline for Gaza c/o Flat 6, 1-2 Bowling Green Place, London SE1 1YL.

(Account numbers and bank details to follow.)

3) Collect: medicines within six months of their use by date as of 14 February, clothes for children and adults alike.

4) We urgently need drivers with HGV licences and mechanics.

5) Due to visa arrangements all those coming on the convoy must have a British passport.

After refusing to air a DEC crisis appeal on Gaza, the BBC have issued a statement intended, I suppose, to tart up the indefensible. It’s marked by a bewildering disingenuousness, claiming, for instance, that there are “question marks about the delivery of aid in a volatile situation“. This leads one to ponder how commonly aid is needed in placid, peaceful situations.

More interesting is the whimper that it’s necessary for them to “avoid any risk of compromising public confidence in [their] impartiality“. Now, impartiality demands the rejection of prejudged perceptions; one doesn’t merely pick n’ mix facts until one reaches a convenient moral balance. Facts aren’t balanced.  They can be nauseatingly disproportionate.

For example, taking a situation where hundreds have died, thousands are malnourished and services are shattered and arguing that calling it a crisis threatens impartiality is just as stupid as refusing to report a 6-1 whitewash for fear of making a match look one-sided. Indeed, elsewhere the Beeb have said that “as journalists, we ha[ve] to be very clear about our function. It’s to give people the plain, unvarnished facts.”

If people feel offended by a thorough, objective viewpoint it’s because their opinions are silly and selective. The fact that some of these opinions are widely held only compounds the silliness. Offend away…

Obama/Bush?

“Let me be clear: America is committed to Israel’s security. And we will always support Israel’s right to defend itself against legitimate threats. For years, Hamas has launched thousands of rockets at innocent Israeli citizens.

No democracy can tolerate such danger to its people, nor should the international community, and neither should the Palestinian people themselves, whose interests are only set back by acts of terror.”

Obama/Bush?

““The situation now taking place in Gaza was caused by Hamas…

“Instead of caring about the people of Gaza, Hamas decided to use Gaza to launch rockets to kill innocent Israelis,” the U.S. President said. “Israel has obviously decided to protect herself and her people.“”