The BBC is unshakably on the side of the Palestinians and completely unsympathetic toward Israel. But apparently for 100 of its staffers, the BBC has been insufficiently hostile toward Israel, and they have signed a joint letter of protest, demanding that the BBC do even more of what it has been doing all along.
Cosigning the letter was William Dalrymple, sweet singer of Mughal India, who has long been a defender, even a celebrator, of the Muslim rule in India. So perhaps his extravagant support of the Palestinians and hostility to Israel is merely a subset of his favoring Islamic peoples.
Here is a bit more that I posted long ago about William Dalrymple, CBE:
William Dalrymple, described here long ago, quite accurately, as an up-market Barbara Cartland, whose tales of trans-racial passion at the Mughal Court, or at this or that princely court in the time of the Mughals, has it all: star-crossed lovers, and of course the Splendor That Was India, or rather the India of the Muslim rulers who lived off of their Hindu subjects, the subjects who were killed by the Muslims in numbers without any historical parallel. (The historian K. S. Lal and others estimate that 60-70 million Hindus were killed by the Muslim conquerors and masters.) Now luxe, and luxe combined with heaving breasts, is the kind of thing that the Barbara-Cartlands of this world love, including even the plausible sort who put in a bit more history and a little less of the romance-novelette lord or duke or Arab prince (see “The Sheik”), who picks up the girl in her swoon at the very end (the promise of sex in such works has always been just beyond what Nabokov calls “the skyline of the page”) — that is, William Dalrymple. He’s as vulgar and predictable as they come, behind the plummy voice and the pretense of being a serious historian of India.
And what is funniest about the Dalrymples and their admirers is that these are the same people who find nothing wrong with the late Edward Said’s complaint about Jane Austen in Mansfield Park, the complaint that she does not mention that a main character lives off his revenues from his West Indian plantation, a plantation with slaves.
But here is Dalrymple singing a song of Mughal India, with its luxe and volupté, if not its calme. Overlooked is its despotism based on the ruthless enslavement and oppression of the Hindu masses by their cruel Muslim masters. (Of course, there were a few exceptions, such as syncretistic Akbar, his memory revered by Hindus for his temporarily lifting the jizyah, and his memory despised by the Muslims, for his softness toward Hindus.)
If anyone should be complained about, it is not that subtle miniaturist Jane Austen, who after all was not singing the praises of slave-owning in the West Indies, but William Dalrymple, who has written endlessly about, made his passionate high-toned romances out of, what was undeniably a slave state.
His love affair with the Muslims of India may help explain his love affair farther afield with the Muslim Arabs. And that may explain, in turn, his complete indifference to the plight of the Jews in Israel who are trying simply to defend themselves and their country against those who are trying to destroy both.
Also signing was Owen Jones of The Guardian, who has long been a fervent supporter of the Palestinians and deeply dislikes Israel. He promotes BDS. He describes Israelis living within the Green Line as “settlers.” He constantly deplores what he calls Israel’s “occupation” of “Palestine.” He repeatedly has accused the Jewish state of committing “genocide.” In his version of reality, that small country now fighting a multi-front war for its very life, as it had to do previously in 1948, 1967, and 1973, is in reality a nasty little Sparta committing “genocide” against the Palestinians. “What further atrocity does Israel need to commit for our politicians to speak up?,” Owen Jones asks.
Okay, Tim Davie. Hold your ground. Give that staff letter of complaint all the respect it deserves — that is, none.
And note that on the one hand, we have the BBC’s anti-Israel brigade of reporters: John Simpson, Jeremy Bowen, Barbara Plett, Orla Guerin, Yolande Knell. And on the other, making an occasional attempt at being quasi-fair to Israel, we have….who?
gravenimage says
William Dalrymple and Owen Jones Claim That the BBC is Too Pro-Israel
……………………………………
I guess since BBC hasn’t come out and lauded Hamas outright for raping women and beheading babies they are too “pro-Israel” for these thugs. Appalling.
mgoldberg says
It’s hollow humor to say that denial is not only a river in egypt…. these guys have no bottom to their ‘progressive’ ideology. As you mention,rape, slaughtering, mutilation- all escape their notice as if it were some mere factoid to be ignored……
gravenimage says
Too true, mgoldberg.
Mick says
Bowen and Simpson are also critical of Shia, Alawite and Sunni regimes. Referees at the Colosseum.
Derek says
The true colours of William Dalrymple and his bigoted views were all but manifest at the aftermath of the riots in Delhi when the “peaceful religion” followers went about in their murder, loot and arson spree. A lady lawyer, Monica Arora, visited the site of the riots and wrote a book that was accepted for publication by Bloomsbury and its book launch was announced. Thats when this Dalrrymple contacted Bloomsbury and arm twisted them with threats of consequences and the book launch was abandoned just.a few hours before the scheduled book launch. The book was delayed and published by an alternative publisher.
Dalrymple is known as an avid leftist and a Hindu hater and propounds his conviction that the Muslims brought culture to India.
࿗Infidel࿘ says
Why does William Dalrymple have a chip on his shoulder about the raj, and a fascination w/ the Mughals? And if he is so enamored w/ the Mughals, why doesn’t he live in Pakistan rather than India? His favorite dynasty is admired in Pakistan and considered a key part of their heritage, unlike in India, where an increasing number of people over the last decade have started exploring the truth about muslim rulers of India, and started hating them
There is a section of Western conservatives, particularly in the UK, that have a nostalgia for that empire, and I’ve even heard Mark Steyn, who I normally otherwise admire, talk about how much better the British empire was, compared to the French, Spaniards, Portuguese, Germans, Belgians (actually Zaire was a personal fiefdom of King Leopold, rather than a colony of Belgium). To which I say that the Russians did a far better job, if one just looks at Central Asia. What the East India Company did was abort the de-islamization of the subcontinent that was happening under the Marathas and the Sikhs, thereby saving the hide of muslims pre 1850s. They forced Afghanistan and Iran to be buffers b/w them and the Russians
By contrast, the Romanovs, when their empire was threatened by Kazakh raiders who would abduct Russian civilians and sell them in the slave markets of Buqhara and Xeva, invaded Turkistan and razed every emirate that existed b/w Siberia and Afghanistan. That area was historically the birthplace of several jihadist empires – the Seljuqs, Qhwarezmids, Timurides as well as derivative kingdoms after those fell. Note that historic Turkistan included not just much of the Turkic -stans, but also Afghanistan and Khorasan region of North East Iran: Samarqand, Buqhara, Merw, Nisa, Herat, Balkh, Nishabour and Mashhed were all part of those various empires. After the Russian conquests, the first 4 cities fell to the Russians, and are today perfectly visitable parts of the -stans. By contrast, the last 4 cities, which the Brits protected from falling to the Russians, are under Taliban rule in one case, and the islamic revolutionary regime of Iran in another
Anyone can assess who did a better job in Central Asia – the House of Hannover or the House of Romanov
gravenimage says
Too many idiots think that Muslim invaders were the indigenous people of India–rather than Hindus and Buddhists.