Muscular Liberals and Celebrity Ex-Extremists

Are we witnessing a convergence of interests and causes between Celebrity Ex-Extremists and British ‘muscular liberals’ (neoconservative types, decent leftists or pro-war liberals)?

Look at the evidence (not proof I hasten to add) so far:

– Shiraz Maher is listed as a member of Policy Exchange on their Facebook profile (this is a closed group which is open to people who have worked for the institute or by invite from the Facebook group administrator only). Policy Exchange, you may remember, was involved in a row with BBC’s Newsnight over a report they released on the availability of extremist literature in British mosques and Islamic centres. Their ‘expert’ on terrorism is Dean Godson, an advocate of ‘political warfare’ and an interventionist foreign policy. Godson’s father (Joseph Godson) and brother (Roy Godson) are noted figures who have helped ‘massage’ American intelligence to achieve certain policy goals (Godson senior appears to have been a Cold War Liberal, the intellectual predecessors of those known as ‘neocons’). Policy Exchange was also Michael Gove’s platform for lauching his political career. And Martin Bright, political editor for the left-wing political magazine The New Statesman, also received sponsorship for his pamphlet on the Islamist connections of promiment British Muslim organisations from Policy Exchange.

– The Quilliam Foundation (home of ex-Hizbis) announce Michael Gove as one of their advisors. Gove’s ‘neoconservative’ views are widely known (he is a member of the neocon Henry Jackson Society), as are his fanatical attacks on Palestinians from the pages of The Times.

– Hassan Butt, who once boasted about his jihadi credentials (funny how he never offered his own services), is given a boost by Nick Cohen, one of the founders of the Euston Manifesto and foremost member of the pro-war left in Britain. Butt, it turns out is writing Leaving Al-Qaeda with the journalist Shiv Malik, a proponent of the ‘conveyor belt’ theory of Islamist activity and terrorism.

Newsnight versus Policy Exchange

There is a a lot blogtivity regarding Newsnight’s investigation into the much publicised Policy Exchange report on extremist literature being sold inside British mosques. Briefly, Newsnight claimed that some of the evidence used or gathered by Policy Exchange was fabricated or of dubious origin, a claim Policy Exchange denies or deems irrelevant.

Dr. Gabriele Marranci (an anthropologist specialising in Muslim communities) had a post back in October when the report was first released questioning the methodology and approach of the report’s authors. This prompted a response from the report’s main author, Dr. Denis MacEoin (himself a specialist in Arab and Persian literature) [1, 2]. Another academic blogger at Remarks and culture had similar criticisms. Ministry of Truth, Obsolete [1, 2] and Brian Whitaker contribute with some analysis of their own. MacEoin’s own political viewpoints are noted by Garry Smith (1, 2), and a quick search of his name tells you a lot. (Indigo Jo, a keen reader of letters to the editor in newspapers, has come across MacEoin before.) Of course, MacEoin’s political viewpoints do not, in and of themselves discount, the findings of the report; but they provide context especially when the method and evidence is found to be suspect.

The general view from these and other bloggers seems to be that what is under question is not the availablity of ‘extremist literature’ at mosques which Policy Exchange researchers probably did find, but the presentation of the report as a rigorous academic exercise by the major media outlets in Britain. In other words, this Newsnight story is really about the standards (and perceptions) of journalism in Britain, which have taken something of a battering in the last few years, and not really about Muslims (although the Muslim institutions wrongfully implicated in the report have every right to feel aggrieved).

Interestingly, Dean Godson, the man wheeled out by the Policy Exchange to defend the report on Newsnight, was fired from the Telegraph back in 2004 when Conrad Black (now a convicted criminal) sold the paper to the Barclay brothers:

The Barclays[, says Martin Newland, then editor of the Telegraph,] have not laid down a clear political line. “There are occasional conversations. I might call about something. Normal, friendly conversations…” Nonetheless, the comment page has seen some of the biggest changes during the interregnum. “I soon came to recognise we were speaking a language on geopolitical events and even domestic events that was dictated too much from across the Atlantic. It’s OK to be pro-Israel, but not to be unbelievably pro-Likud Israel, it’s OK to be pro-American but not look as if you’re taking instructions from Washington. Dean Godson and Barbara Amiel were key departures.”

Spinwatch did an investigation into Godson’s ideological roots in September this year, which is very informative and provides a lot of context.

And, of course, Labour are seeking to profit from the suspicions cast over Policy Exchange, given the think-tank is linked to the Tory Party.

The invasion of Iraq was a bad idea

Promoting freedom and democracy one laser-guided missle at a time

The US has announced military aid packages worth more than $60bn (£30bn) for Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and other key Arab allies in the Gulf. The aim is to boost regional defences against the growing power of Iran and to induce the Saudis in particular to cut back support for Sunni insurgent groups inside Iraq.

Last night, top Bush administration officials headed to the Middle East to discuss details of the arrangements. The most controversial element – in the US at least – is the supply of advanced weaponry to Saudi Arabia, including satellite-guided bombs, upgrades to fighter aircraft, as well as new navy ships, in a deal that could be worth $20bn.

In an attempt to reassure Israel, and head off opposition in Congress, Washington has promised the Jewish state a massive increase in military aid, to $30bn over the next decade, some 30 per cent more than over the past 10 years.

Source: Independent.

Right-wing bloggers unable to cope with Turkish election results

From Steven Taylor:

I rarely go to Malkin’s blog, but I noted via Memeorandum that she was commenting on the Turkish elections, so I was curious. Her post was pretty much what I expected: Which way, Turkey?:

“Turkey is holding parliamentary elections today. The importance of the vote there can’t be emphasized enough. The choice in the minds of many Turks is this: sharia or secularism? East or West?”

I suspect that there is a great deal of the right-leaning Blogosphere that believes this to be the case. However, there is no indication that this is, in fact, the case. I am well aware that there are those in Turkey who are quite concerned about what the AKP’s reall agenda is (including at least one very bright former graduate student of mine). However, the notion that this should be painted as “secularism v. sharia” and “East or West” is simply incorrect. For example, it is the AKP that is the party that is most in favor of Turkey joining the EU (that would be a pro-Western stance, for those of you keeping score at home).

The funny thing is that the so-called “neo-con” faction of the GOP ought to be looking at Turkey as their best potential example of the notion that Muslim states can be democratic and the AKP may well be their best example of a moderate Muslim-based political party of any consequence in the entire world. If the AKP ends up governing in a way that does respect rights then it would seem to me to be of use to the neo-cons (to date the only issue that has been a serious contention in this area is that the AKP supports allowing the wearing of headscarves by Muslim women for those who choose to do so). However, it would seem that Islamophobia is more in operation here than anything else.

Also, Malkin’s focus on violence during the election is rather odd, as 17 injuries in a country the size of Turkey hardly seems noteworthy (let alone headline-worthy). Her use of scare quotes around “largely peaceful” are rather telling.

Surprise, surprise

Daniel Tubes promotes the use of terrorism against Muslims.

In the article he goes on praise Mujahedeen-e-Khalq (MeK), a Marxist-Islamist organisation listed by both the US and UK as terrorist outfit.

Not only that, but the Council on Foreign Relations suggests they might have killed American servicemen in Tehran during the 1970s.

So, Daniel Tubes supports not only a terrorist outfit to terrorise Iranian Muslims, but also a group that might have killed his own countrymen.

The American Right and British Intellectuals

The latest British intellectual hawking himself around the US is Andrew Roberts. Slate takes a closer look at "George Bush's favourite historian".

Jacob Weisberg, reviewing Roberts' latest offering A History of the English Speaking Peoples since 1900, is not happy with the Roberts’ "sloppy" assertions and his bizarre claim that the Irish mafia in Hollywood portray the English as villains (the Jews get a day off then). But Roberts' use of history to service Empire is hardly novel. Bernard Lewis has made this particular game his own and gets rewarded handsomely.

I also need to ask if the American (pro-war) Right really needs the approval of British intellectuals? Given the list of the Brits broadly approving of the current administration, and eargely cited by right-wingers (Bernard Lewis, Christopher Hitchens, Andrew Sullivan, Niall Ferguson), it would appear that way.