Now Fisk this
That strange man Robert Fisk, says the following in an interview published in today’s Morning Star:
“The first man I ever heard mention the danger of civil war in Iraq was Dan Semor, spokesman for the occupying powers in the Green Zone in August 2003. No-one had ever heard about the danger of civil war before, no Iraqi had ever mentioned it. I remember thinking: ‘What are they trying to do, frighten the Iraqis into obedience?’
“You don’t need to set up car bombs to divide people, you can do it quite successfully just by constant repitition – civil war, Sh’ites, militias, Sunnis, power. You create the narrative. And then, in due course, people fall into line because it is the only one they get.”
Will someone please explain to me what, exactly, that means? Have I misunderstood something? Is Fisk making some point so profound that it passes right over the head of a simpleton like me? Or can he really be saying that if you talk to people (“create a narrative“) often enough about something, it simply comes true? Or does that trick only work with Iraqis? Of course: the threat of civil war has nothing whatsoever to do with the activities of al Queda or the blowing up of of the Samarra mosque: it was simply created by the Yanks talking about it, wasn’t it?
People keep telling me that Mr Fisk is a “brilliant” journalist who has “unique insights” into the situation in the Middle East, so – probably – I’m missing something here.
Still, the Star interview does contain one unambigious and enlightening statement from Fisk:
“If you saw what I saw, you would never, ever think of supporting war of any kind against anyone ever again.”
Shiraz Socialist 
Jim Denham said,
April 16, 2008 at 1:23 am
Oh yes; an additional point that I meant to comment upon at the time: Mr Fisk appeared upon BBC Radio 4’s ‘Broadcasting House’ programme on Sunday April 6th, and was asked about Ben Elton’s claim that it is now virtually impossible to make jokes about Islam on the BBC or other mainstream media. He (Fisk) immediately changed the subject to fundamentalist Christianity…and then made the extraordinary claim that the Danish “Mohammed” cartoons had been accepted, whereas similar , equivalent cartoons about Jews would have been banned as “anti-semitic”: Fisk’s claim is not just nonsense: it is the opposite of the truth – as he ought to know. His own newspaper, the ‘Independedent’, published a cartoon showing Arial Sharon drinking the blood of a (Palestinian) child – a clear reference to the “blood libel”, that many readers objected to. But the objections were disallowed, and no apology was required. No-one was held to account – unlike the authors of the Danish cartoons, whose lives are at risk. The fool Fisk appears not to understand these simple truths.
Jim Denham said,
April 16, 2008 at 6:56 am
That ‘Independent’ cartoon actualy won an award:
http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Diplomacy/3020.htm
stroppybird said,
April 16, 2008 at 9:22 am
Jim
You appear to be talking to yourself, the idea is for other people to comment and then you join in 🙂
Jim Denham said,
April 16, 2008 at 11:22 am
My Dear Ms Stroppy,
I am merely attempting to ensure an intelligent level of discussion.
Yours,
James
you are an agent of imperialism said,
April 16, 2008 at 11:26 am
Robert Fisk’s point was idealist. Surprise, he is not a marxist, well spotted.
Why do you spend your whole time criticising everyone who is anti-war, and no-one who is pro-war? you are offended for Ariel Sharon, a murderer, but you hate Robert Fisk like he was the one to blame for the civil war.
Iraq is a backwards society because it is a dumping ground for imperialist capital. This is why the third world is in civil war always, yeah, when there is poverty, you have to COMPETE, and this means rivalry between communities. you like to say how you are so working class, if you really know poverty you will understand this, but no, you lecture the “backwards” muslims who have to liberated by your western enlightenment. NO. They have to unite to fight imperialism.
sackcloth and ashes said,
April 16, 2008 at 12:04 pm
Robert Fisk was the one who – after the Ashura bombings of March 2004 – declared that there ‘has never been a civil war in Iraq’ and no record of sectarian violence or animosity before 2003 (‘The Independent’, 2nd March 2004). He’s almost as intellectually incontinent as the commenter above.
Rob Ray said,
April 16, 2008 at 12:28 pm
The ‘creating a narrative’ idea comes from fairly basic propaganda theory. If you control the sources of mass information, you can dictate the framework within which discourse takes place, and shift mass opinion. This is not only true outside Iraq, it is a model which already exists in western countries.
As a very basic example, if someone only gets to read the Daily Mail, they tend to become more right wing as a result in their opinions, as it is the main source of information received about the outside world. On a wider scale, Chomsky in Manufacturing Consent explains pretty nicely the structure which currently restricts political discussion in the US. Most people will never discuss non-mainstream ideas because they don’t experience them, and crucially, will spend formative years in which they are not independent in their reading exposed solely to a narrow field of nationalist, right-wing capitalist ideology (ie. mass media outlets such as Fox or CNN) – which then informs their choice of media consumption as an adult.
This propaganda model is even more stark when rendered in an Iraqi context. If you are a Shi’ite keeping your head down, can’t stray far outside your home streets because of the war and your information is coming only through rumour and ‘official’ media which tells you the Sunnis are killing people like you, that terror stalks everywhere and civil war is around the corner, that becomes your reality and you react accordingly.
As an ideal for the US and Iraqi state, that means you move over to their side and start fighting their battles for them. The other likely outcome is that you join up with whoever is currently in your area who you think can protect you and yours – perpetuating the cycle and adding grist to the propagandist mill.
As I say, that’s not to imply this is the reason for the fighting, but it is a recognised phenomenon he’s talking about,
you are an agent of imperialism said,
April 16, 2008 at 1:13 pm
{sackcloth and ashes said,
April 16, 2008 at 12:04 pm
Robert Fisk was the one who – after the Ashura bombings of March 2004 – declared that there ‘has never been a civil war in Iraq’ and no record of sectarian violence or animosity before 2003 (’The Independent’, 2nd March 2004). He’s almost as intellectually incontinent as the commenter above.}
No, I am materialist. What is your explanation for the violence in Iraq? they are “evil”? Haha.
modernity said,
April 16, 2008 at 3:19 pm
off topic: back to the Embryology Bill
I think Newman’s finally lost it, apparently he has concerns about the Embryology Bill and they somehow relate to BSE??
However, it’s not exactly to clear why mad cow disease is involved here, Newman is not very good at explaining himself in a logical fashion:
“76 Doug
I have no idea what you are talking about.
Embryo reserach is an area where Respect doesn’t have policy. George Galloway has an opinion on it. Other people have a different opinion. Respect is a broad party where there are differences of opinion over a number of matters.
I personally have concerns about the embryo reserach bill for entirely different reasons from galloway, that I am not yet reassured of the safety of xeno-hybrids of human eggs and the eggs of other animals. After BSE I take a bit more convincing.
Comment by Andy Newman — 16 April, 2008 @ 3:38 pm”
johng said,
April 16, 2008 at 3:28 pm
Actually Iraq did not have a history of sectarian violence compared to other countries. Indeed intermarriage between different faiths and communities is probably higher in Iraq then in Britain. Iraq did have a history of the State directing violence towards particular communities which is not the same thing. It is worthwhile highlighting that the kind of civil war one is seeing today in Iraq has absolutely no prescedent in that society. There is a narrative which tries to suggest that its all perfectly natural for such savages to do such things. Its false. The complete destruction of Iraqi society since the invasion is wholly a novel phenomenan and should not be naturalised. Something else that shouldn’t be naturalised is Iraq’s low level of economic development. It was in fact the most developed as well as highly educated population in the entire region. These things should not be forgotten.
martin ohr said,
April 16, 2008 at 3:34 pm
Mod,
I’ve heard this repeated in a couple of places by RR types along the lines of “…take the scientists word for it that they need the embryology bill, after they brought us BSE, not likely.”
I though conventional wisdom was that money-grubbing farmers brought about bse by effectively feeding dead animals back to their offspring, in the face of scientific warnings not to.
And how like Newman to invoke the world of science fiction by using the term xeno-hybrids; which I’m not sure is the correct word.
I’m still hoping that by the time my wife needs a transplant that pig kidneys will be widely available, unless of course somehow there’s a Galloway/Newman/Yaqoob government before then which stops all ungodly scientific research.
resistor said,
April 16, 2008 at 4:02 pm
The cartoon depicted Ariel Sharon biting the head off a baby, not drinking its blood as Denham claims. Denham is being dishonest as usual.
This is a statement from Sharon
Jerusalem, 23 July 2002
Statement by Prime Minister Sharon
(Communicated by the Prime Minister’s Media Adviser)
Prime Minister Ariel Sharon today (Tuesday), July 23, 2002, made the following remarks at the start of the Cabinet meeting:
“Yesterday, we struck at the most senior member of Hamas’ operational side, a man who – inter alia – reorganized and rebuilt Hamas’ forces in Samaria, in addition to his actions in Gaza.
Naturally, Israel has no interest in harming civilians and it is always regrettable if civilians are hit.
This action, to my knowledge, is one of our major successes and it necessitates all of us being on top alert.”
What Sharon failed to mention was that this ‘major success’ involved dropping a one-ton bomb on a residential block in the middle of the night as people slept. This resulted in the deaths of 14 innocent civilians including 9 children. I think that depicting the racist, mass-murderer and fascist Ariel Sharon biting the head off a baby is justified in these (and many other) circumstances.
Why does Denham defend this monster and his crimes?
modernity said,
April 16, 2008 at 4:08 pm
yeah Martin,
those sentiments seem all too common at SU, a backward looking anti-modernism, anti-science, anti-the modern world, very strange.
I think it is partly to do with all of that religious guff that SUers have been imbibing? not sure
Jim Denham said,
April 16, 2008 at 5:21 pm
To: “Resistor” and “UR ‘n’ agent”: read whaty I actually said! I was *not* defending Sharon, and no literate or honest reading of my comments could possibly infer that I was. I was making the point that this particular cartoon (and there have been others equally offensive -eg Martin Rowson in the Graun), presents a deeply resonant image that carries a clear anti-semitic implication. The reference to the “blood libel” (clearly there, “Resistor”, unless you’re blind as well as racist), just possibly may have been unintentional (the cartoonist, Dave Brown claimed that he was unfamiliar with the “blood libel” myth), but the caroon itself quite obviously caused enormous offense to Jews. No-one, however proposed that Mr Brown be killed, or – indeed – that the cartoon should be “withdrawn”, or anything of the sort. My point was that Fisk was talking bollocks when he stated that if cartoons had been produced that offended Jews in the same way that the “Danish” cartoons offended (some) Muslims, they would have been suppressed without question…the cartoonist on his own newspaper, the Independent, has proved that such an assertion is plainly incorrect. That was my only point about the “Sharon” /”Blood Libel” cartoon. OK? Understand now?
stroppybird said,
April 16, 2008 at 8:23 pm
“My Dear Ms Stroppy,
I am merely attempting to ensure an intelligent level of discussion.
Yours,
James”
James
Its madam Stroppy to you:-)
Oh and surely you dont really expect intelligent levels of discussion on blogs !
sackcloth and ashes said,
April 16, 2008 at 8:42 pm
‘Actually Iraq did not have a history of sectarian violence compared to other countries. ‘
Really? No shit? So what happened in Mosul in March 1959 was a little local misunderstanding, for example. And regime forces did not crush the Shia rising of 1991 with the caption ‘No Shia after today’ on their tanks? And Al-Sadr’s family wasn’t purged.
Is this man honestly doing a PhD at SOAS when he knows fuck-all about the West Asian country under discussion?
‘No, I am materialist. What is your explanation for the violence in Iraq? they are “evil”? ‘
Erm, no. I’d point out the atomisation of society that happened under Baathism as a deliberate part of the regime’s strategy of divide and rule (which Mr Game studiously ignores) which set Arab against Kurd, Kurd against Turkmen, Sunni against Shia, tribe against tribe, and clan against clan, as decribed by reputable histories and studies on Iraq, listed below:
Come back and comment once you’ve read one of these, and once your voice has broken.
Oh, John Game – you might want to give these a try as well, rather than back issues of ‘Socialist Worker’. After all, one of the authors here actually teaches at SOAS.
Jim Denham said,
April 16, 2008 at 10:22 pm
…and to UR an agent (re comment#5, above): the self-evident fact that sectarianism has its roots in poverty and exploitation (in Northern Ireland, just as in Iraq) doesn’t mean that Marxists simply accept it as OK or inevitable. We oppose and denounce it. But most importantly, we counterpose our own programme of workers’ unity, a planned economy and a rationally-organised democratic society. No doubt you consider that “lecturing” people about “enlightenment values”…well, actaually…that’s what us Marxists *do* What we *don’t* do is infantalise people and assume that because they’re from a poor, exploited background, “enlightenment values” are too advanced for them. Such an assumption would be patronising and almost…well…racist. Wouldn’t it?
resistor said,
April 16, 2008 at 10:49 pm
Denham writes
‘the caroon itself quite obviously caused enormous offense to Jews’
Why should depicting a mass murderer like Sharon as the killer of children that he is be offensive to anyone? And why did those who took offense not protest against Sharon killings of civilians.
There was a time that people spoke out against fascists like Sharon and his former comrades Begin and Shamir.
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Dissent/Einstein_NYTimes_Israel.html
Jim Denham said,
April 16, 2008 at 11:08 pm
Do you even know what the “blood libel” was, you ignorant, anti-semitic twat, “Resistor”?
free us from idiot analyses said said,
April 16, 2008 at 11:14 pm
Please – can someone kill resistor please — make it ugly as well. just for kicks.
modernity said,
April 16, 2008 at 11:35 pm
Here’s some background on the blood libel (apologies in advance of the first site, but it does explain it fairly well):
http://www.religioustolerance.org/jud_blib1.htm
this one is more comprehensive:
http://www.engageonline.org.uk/journal/index.php?journal_id=12&article_id=42
http://www.engageonline.org.uk/blog/article.php?id=874
and http://www.aish.com/literacy/jewishhistory/Crash_Course_in_Jewish_History_Part_46_-_Blood_Libel.asp
Not from Dundee said,
April 16, 2008 at 11:43 pm
Adeel should go back to licking Ken’s arse and keep his mouth shut.
voltairespriest said,
April 17, 2008 at 6:16 am
I think you’ll find that they’re all rather beyond the world of politics these days, “Resistor”. “Speaking out” against Sharon, Begin and Shamir is about as timely as “speaking out” against Napoleon in 2008.
Andrew Coates said,
April 17, 2008 at 11:25 am
Back to the point Fisk made. I too read it in the Morning Star and was astonished. I may not be the world’s greatest expert on Iraq.
Indeed.
But *before* the Invasion we had a Trades Council delegation to our local MP, Chris Mole, (we were affiliates at the time to the StWC – now a shrunken creature locally, and, despite some brave souls being there, iit’s nationally compromised with tyranny and Islamicist racists).
During this meeting with our MP I forcefully argued that one of the dangers of the invasion was a civil war between Shias, Sunnis and Kurds. And general chaos and violence. Now I must have got that idea from something coming from Iraq by someone.. ..Absolutely must have.
But if that’s not the case I claim to be someone who said it before Dan Symour. Even if I’m not an Iraqi.
KB Player said,
April 17, 2008 at 6:15 pm
“You don’t need to set up car bombs to divide people, you can do it quite successfully just by constant repitition – civil war, Sh’ites, militias, Sunnis, power. You create the narrative. And then, in due course, people fall into line because it is the only one they get.”
The over used and vague word “narrative” is usually a sign of some slippery work. “Narrative” used to mean “story”, “tale” or “detailed recounting of events”. What does it mean here? You put ideas into their heads? You wrote something like a story board and everyone followed it? Or does it mean “conspiracy”? Translate it that way and it sounds like nonsense.
resistor said,
April 17, 2008 at 8:49 pm
The cartoon of Sharon was an obvious allusion to Goya’ famous painting Saturn Devouring His Son
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_Devouring_His_Son
nothing to do with any blood-libel.
As for timeliness, I think it is very relevant to the current treatment of the Palestinians that Israel has regularly elected fascists and racists as its Prime Ministers.
Ben Gurion and Golda Meir were racists. Begin was a fascist. Shamir was a fascist and a leader of a pro-Nazi terrorist gang. Sharon was a fascist and a serial war criminal. Ehud Barak is a racist. Netanyahu and Olmert are worshippers of the fascist Jabotinsky.
Sharon was the leader of a death squad called Unit 101 that carried out several massacres of Palestinian civilians.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_101
The worst was that of Qibya where 69 were murdered in cold blood.
Sharon was promoted.
In 1956 Sharon murdered Egyptian prisoners of war
http://www.time.com/time/international/1995/950828/israel.html
Promoted again, this is how you get on in the Israeli army
Then Sharon murdered more in occupied Gaza after 1967
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/israels-danger-man-637627.html
Promted again.
As well all know, he then sent his fellow fascists from the Lebanese Phalanges into the defenceless Sabra and Shatila refugee camps to rape, mutilate and murder old me women and children.
So embarrassing to the Israelis they slapped him on the wrist and made him Prime Minister.
This is the man that Jim Denham, Moddy and Volty want to defend by smearing a cartoonist who portrayed Sharon as the monster he is. Enormous offence indeed!
Dr Paul said,
April 18, 2008 at 11:22 pm
Having seen this cartoon, I cannot agree that it is anti-Semitic. It bears no relation to the cartoons about ‘blood libel’ and other Jew-baiting cartoons that I have seen. The Anti-Defamation League finds it anti-Semitic, but they’d find anything critical of Israel anti-Semitic. Even the AWL’s stance on Israel/Palestine would probably come under that rubric with the ADL.
modernityblog said,
April 19, 2008 at 1:43 am
so there is a degree of difference on the cartoon?
surely we can agree that if an individual (such as resistor) constantly returns to this theme, and implies that Israelis are uniquely bloodthirsty or mendacious, then you have to ask why?
and if he and many others were doing this about another nation or group of individuals then we wouldn’t spend time debating it, we would realise this in a moment or two that the motivation behind it is not political but it is racial, it is a long-term lingering loathing for Jews and for many nasty little individuals, like resistor, Sharon was the epitome of that hatred
therefore when looking at this subject we should try to consider the motives of rgw perpetrators, such as resistor, in this matter and not be overly charitable
Dr Paul said,
April 19, 2008 at 11:02 am
To Modernity: Do you know who Resistor is? What he has written above is little different from what various opponents of Zionism, many of them Jews, have written, people — some of whom I know personally — with whom I have various disagreements, for example over the boycott of Israel, but whose integrity and opposition to racism (including anti-Semitism) I would never doubt.
That their main area of work is Palestine/Israel means that they constantly return to this matter, and can get a bit obsessive about it. Campaigners on any issue — be it Palestine/Israel, Tibet, Ireland, etc, etc — can become monomanic about their favoured subject, and tend to promote their particular enemy figure as particularly evil.
I don’t know Resistor, so I don’t know if he is the same sort of person as those mentioned above. He may be an anti-Semite who hides his real political outlook under the guise of anti-Zionism, but I have seen no evidence of that. If you have any evidence of anti-Semitism on his part — by this I mean the real thing, not the sort of thing of which the Peckham branch of the Anti-Defamation League accuses many honest people — please let me know.
modernityblog said,
April 19, 2008 at 12:25 pm
Dr Paul wrote:
That their main area of work is Palestine/Israel means that they constantly return to this matter, and can get a bit obsessive about it. Campaigners on any issue
sorry, perhaps I didn’t explain myself well enough, amongst anti-Jewish racists obsession is just one element, which is followed with the persistency of theme: devilish nature of Israelis/Zionists, how they are bloodthirsty calculating and manipulative, etc in making a judgement we need to take those and other factors into account
as for resistor, I don’t have any of his old comments, because I’d hoped to forget them but I’m suggesting to you that you might do well to look at his comments in a less charitable light
for example, if someone were constantly going on about Islam, and spent an eternity dredging up borderline issues about Muslims and the Koran, then I would not expect you to give it a moment’s thought, you would see where that line of reasoning is going and conclude that in all probability** the intent is racist
if we were to study extreme rightwing bulletin boards and web sites, we’d see common themes and many times these are dressed up in an “anti-Zionist rhetoric” when the real intent is anti-Jewish racism and I think we need to bear both of those issues in mind when considering the situation.
———
** it is hard nowadays to know with full certainty as racists are often good at clouding the issues or hiding their words behind other points
resistor said,
April 19, 2008 at 9:29 pm
I did not initiate this discussion, It was Jim Denham who brought up the case of the Sharon cartoon and lied about what it portrayed. For pointing out his dishonesty I was again abused and yet again accused of anti-semitism. I think those who believe Ariel Sharon is representative of more than a tiny minority of Jews are the real anti-semites. Sharon represents fascism. To call a cartoon that portrays his fascism in the manner of Goya ‘a blood libel’ .is what I call ‘clouding the issues’.
Finally I have also been threatened with violence without comment from the allies of Denham. viz
‘free us from idiot analyses said said,
April 16, 2008 at 11:14 pm
Please – can someone kill resistor please — make it ugly as well. just for kicks.’
Whata nice people you all are…
voltairespriest said,
April 20, 2008 at 12:32 am
I wouldn’t hold your breath waiting for that “threat” (sounded more like bollocks to me) to be carried out. It’s never gonna happen.
resistor said,
April 20, 2008 at 1:21 pm
Sounds like your mate ‘Will’ again
voltairespriest said,
April 20, 2008 at 3:09 pm
“Mate”? All I ever see from Will on here is mindless abuse, as I’m sure you’re aware.