All Men are Liars

Alberto Manguel, translated by Miranda France
240pp Alma Books, £12.99
ISBN: 978-1-84688-109-1

There is something about this book in itself that suggests the imposter. Its cover is fake worn, the corners dog-eared; and the interior carries on the pose with an antique typeface and design. I half expected the pages to have the musty brown vapour of a dry old book shop.
We are expected to believe that the author is a liar. In fact, it’s easy to suspect that the true author is Miranda France, as, after the opening “Apologia” by “Alberto Manguel”, another contributor begins by declaring, “Albert Manguel is an asshole. Whatever he told you about Alejandro, I’ll bet my right arm it’s wrong, Terradillos..”
The story involves a tiny group of Argentinian expatriates keeping loosely together in 1970s Madrid; one of them, Alejandro Bevilacqua, has just died in a fall from his balcony the night before his book, which his compatriots insist is a literary masterpiece, is published.
The several accounts of the tragedy (in the form of letters to the unseen Terradillos) and the events leading to it differ as each writer knew Bevilacqua in separate ways and separate times, and each writer has peculiar, and untrustworthy, slants on what followed. But piece by piece, the man takes shape. He grew up in Argentina, fell in love with a puppeteer’s daughter, reluctantly began to write pulpy scripts for photo-comics and was imprisoned and tortured for reasons unknown to himself. One of the lovers he finds on his escape digs up his hidden or lost manuscript and insists on getting it published. Its title: “In Praise of Lying”. And her tale may be the one true account.

A letter from Bevilacqua’s one-time cellmate, El Chancho (“the Pig”) appears to suggest that he and not Bevilacqua was the author. On the other hand, there is the possibility that Bevilacqua wrote El Chancho’s letter.
If this sounds like a pain in the head, in fact it’s quite fascinating, partly because of the stream of warm, long-shadowed melancholy running through it. It’s really all about the unreliability of memory and perception as much as about reading itself. There are no signposts, and you will be a few pages into each revelation before you guess who it’s from; but I will say no more about that. No spoiler here.

For brain-food, the kind of book to hang on to, as you know it contains at least a couple more good meals, and you will be tempted to return for another look- just to make sure.

There is a list, at the back, of the author’s other works, which include “A History of Reading”. This is almost too good to be true!

Open letter to the people of Israel

Journalist Lauren Booth was on the first Free Gaza voyage and stayed to work in Gaza after the boats left. Her heartfelt letter to the people of Israel should be read and seen by everyone who hopes for peace in the Middle East, including those for whom "peace" means "greater Israel". This video realisation of her words was designed and produced by the Free Gaza movement.

The Independent - a suitable case for scepticism?

How independent is the Independent? When this young upstart began publication in 1986, it was too easy to dismiss it with the response,”No such thing” - although it has had periods when it did, indeed, look independent. My kind of independent, of course, slightly leftwards. Five years after its birth it imploded and went off the radar for a while, but rallied.

Now, though, with the kind of issue that either polarises or unifies, as the Israeli attack on the Peace Flotilla, the Indie’s true colours have been exposed.

Efforts by Tony Greenstein and a multitude of friends to place an advert condemning the BBC for its highly partial Panorama programme about the attack have been met with, first, a Jack Straw-style fog of constructive inactivity; then a kaliedoscope of legalese cant. The Guardian is also fidgety about attacking Auntie Beeb, but at least they put it in writing. As of today, Sunday 12th, the plan is to place the advert in the leftwing weeklies. And be damned!

Sat 11 September 2010

Dear Friends,

I was rung up yesterday by the Independent's libel lawyer, who I believe is Janet Youngson, and we had a completely fruitless conversation in which she made every type of objection possible. As you can see from my letter there is no point in pursuing this any further.

I will therefore submit it to the New Statesman, Spectator and left press as the majority of signatories have agreed.

It has been interesting seeing how the free press operates and how it is able to hide behind legal mystification. Note the contrast between the Indie's legal opinion, which it was not prepared to put down in writing, and that of the Guardian.

Would people do their best to spread this far and wide, Media Lens and any other outlets. A number of suggestions have been made by people.

best wishes

Tony

Saturday, 11 September 2010

Imogen Haddon
Managing Editor
The Independent and The Independent on Sunday

Dear Ms Haddon,

I was rung up by your libel lawyer, Janet Youngson I believe her name is, yesterday regarding the advert we tried placing with the Independent on 19th August concerning the BBC’s coverage of the attack on the Gaza Freedom Flotilla. I assumed, after our recent correspondence, that she would be able to give me a list of specific points which you had problems with, in order that we could hopefully agree to any amendments or alterations deemed necessary to enable you to run the ad.

Ms Youngson immediately made it clear that she was unable to provide a list of objections because, in her own words, she had marked nearly every paragraph as requiring changes. I told her that I was happy, for example, to make it clear that it was in our opinion that the Israeli Military’s ‘Go Back to Auschwitz’ clip, that was uncritically broadcast by the BBC, was a fake rather than simply stating it as such. Ms Youngson’s response was that that changed nothing. It was equally defamatory, she said, to say that ‘in our opinion you are a murderer’.

There is however a difference, as there usually is, with such broad brush analogies. The Israeli navy commandos did murder 9 unarmed peace activists in international waters, most shot at close quarters to the head. Likewise the ‘Auschwitz’ clip contained no background sounds or noise, like the other clips the IOF broadcast, so it could have been recorded by anyone, anywhere and at any time. This was, of course, after the Israeli military had withdrawn their claim that it came from the Mavi Marmara. Ms Youngson’s response was that in a libel case the defendant has to prove their assertion, which is true, but this is on the balance of probability. Questions such as Israel’s confiscation of film and recording equipment would, in itself, have enabled powerful inferences to be drawn. I would have been prepared to make it clear that the BBC did not knowingly broadcast a faked tape, though it use of such was clearly grossly negligent, but this too wasn’t acceptable.

Ms Youngson also had problems with the statement that ‘Throughout its coverage the BBC broadcast uncritically Israel’s own film “evidence” of their commandos being attacked, when it was fully aware that this had edited out the initial lethal attack.’‘ Yet this is an established fact. Ms Youngson’s response was that the BBC often show people’s home video clips! Well yes, but this wasn’t a home or mobile movie but a carefully edited IDF clip which excluded the original attack on the ships.

Her next objection was that I couldn’t prove that the BBC had done this everywhere, including on its Arabic World Service broadcasts. This is true. I don’t have the resources monitor the BBC world-wide. Nor is it necessary since the advert is being placed in a British newspaper. However I offered to change this to BBC News 24, but this was also unacceptable.

What Ms Youngson was really seeking was nothing less than a wholesale rewriting of the advert, the effect of which would have been to make it so innocuous that it would no longer have been our views that were expressed. It also transpired that Ms Youngson had worked at the BBC as a lawyer, because she kept referring to how the BBC worked internally.

We also approached the Guardian to run the advert, but decided for other reasons against this. Their legal department also had objections and, as the e-mail below demonstrates, they had no difficulty outlining what they were. Their objections related solely to a minor rewording of the allegation that the tape which was broadcast was faked and that the IDF had admitted it was not from the MM.

What made the conversation with Ms Youngson even more surreal was that she admitted the BBC would not sue for libel. The idea that the Israeli military would sue, when they are keen to avoid subjecting any of their claims to an independent inquiry, is absurd. Ms Youngson also stated that if another newspaper printed the advert then she’d have no or fewer problems about running it, even though the fact that another publication prints something libellous is no defence to a libel action.

It became clear to me that despite her claims to be speaking as a libel lawyer, Ms Youngson’s and therefore the Independent’s objections to the advert, were political not legal. We could not criticise the BBC’s coverage unless we could prove everything according to the ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ test and in any event we were ascribing a motive to their slanted coverage, namely that it was deliberate, whereas I was quite happy to accept that they have been biased for so long, on the Palestinian and other questions, that it is almost subconscious.

The reason that Ms Youngson and the Independent could not supply a list of specific objections was that it objected to the advert in toto but did not feel able to say this. It is clear that any legal concerns were a smokescreen for political objections. I pointed out repeatedly that what we were saying was covered by provisions relating to ‘fair comment’ in libel law, which she did not seem able to take on board. I then decided that there was no point in continuing the conversation and terminated the call.

The advert which we have unsuccessfully tried to place with you was no more than a paid for Op-Ed. There was nothing defamatory about it at all. The objections to it were political not legal. I would have expected the Independent of all papers to have resisted the temptation to engage in such absurd self-censorship. Clearly I was wrong.

Yours sincerely,

Tony Greenstein

From: Jennifer Melmore
To: tony greenstein
Sent: Thu, 9 September, 2010 12:33:27
Subject: Re: Proposed advert

Hi Tony

Legal have just got back to me and said that we'll only be able to run your ad if you can make a few changes to the copy, as detailed below:

'In the 2nd paragraph ("In return, the BBC broadcast what amounted...") the advertiser would need to change the sentance "The BBC even broadcast a clearly faked clip, purporting to come from the Flotilla" to something that doesn't go as far as saying it was faked. Also the sentance " Even the IDF admitted on June 5th that this had been ‘edited’ and was not from the MM. http://tinyurl.com/2dvq6ph " would have to be changed as the IDF has apprently not said that the broadcast in question didn't come from the MM, just that it wasn't possible to tell which ship in particular it had come from.'

Please let me know what you think,

All the best,

Jennifer

Jennifer Melmore
Client Account Manager

Also: see Tony Greenstein's blog. at http://azvsas.blogspot.com/2010/09/jane-corbin-bbcs-prostitute-of-airwaves.html

BBC Bias: Is Jane Corbin leaning too far?

BBC bias: the Gaza Freedom Flotilla
By Anthony Lawson
Copyright © Redress Information & Analysis.


Documentary maker Anthony Lawson argues, in a remarkably dispassionate 15-minute video critique of BBC Panorama's 'Death on the Med', that the BBC's "biased and often untruthful treatment of Israel's worst atrocity since Operation Cast Lead should trigger a public enquiry about who is really in charge of one of the most influential broadcasters on the planet". Well, okay; calling the attack on the Freedom Flotilla the worst atrocity since Cast Lead is a little overstated. Jane Corbin may or may not an active supporter of Israel but she certainly looks a little less than unequivocal. Her reputation as an unbiased reporter is seriously compromised; and she, and indeed the BBC ("Nation shall speak peace unto nation"), are sidelined in a world where the truth flows everywhere and the lies of politicians, the press and the police are only as good as rusty old sieves.



Read more, at:
http://www.redress.cc/global/alawson20100911

A propos "Peace Talks"

While the current round of so-called peace talks grinds onwards, with maximum publicity and to minimum effect, the Zionists continue to build their “settlements”, Palestinians continue to be bombed in Gaza and must beg for permits to use their own front doors in Hebron. The US President is weighed down by the Zionist lobby and the power of the arms industry, Netanyahu, representing Israel, will settle for nothing less than total ‘cleansing’ of Palestine and the priority for Mahmoud Abbas is that Fatah remains in power. Gilad Atzmon, the outsider with insider's insight, says it all in his blog:

Needless to mention, I don’t hold my breath for the outcome of the current ‘peace talks’. As I mentioned many times before, Israelis are not interested in peace as they fail to grasp what peace is all about or what it stands for. Shalom, the Hebrew word for peace, is interpreted by Israelis and most Jews as ‘security for the Jews’. Shalom therefore has nothing to do with reconciliation or living amongst others. Shalom is a judeo-centric concept, it conveys an image of hope to one people only. The Israeli Palestinian conflict can never be resolved by a ‘shalom initiative’. Shalom is there to split the land and separate the people. It is there to deny the Palestinians of their elementary rights such as the Right of Return.

But let us assume for a second that I am completely wrong in my reading of the Israelis and their cultural and political understandings. Let’s for that purpose look into an imaginary scenario in which an Israeli PM wakes up one sunny morning with the unusual determination to bring about true peace. In the wee small hours, wisdom embraces him or her. He or she realises that Israel is in fact Palestine: it is stretched over historic Palestine at the expense of the Palestinian people, their livelihood and their history. He or she grasps that the Palestinians are the indigenous people of the land, and the rockets they shoot from time to time are nothing but love letters to their stolen villages, orchards, vineyards and fields.

Our imaginary Israeli PM realises that the so-called Israeli Palestinian conflict can be resolved in 25 minutes once both people decide to live together. Following the Israeli unilateral tradition, an immediate televised press conference is called on the same day at 2 PM. Captivated by true righteousness the PM announces to the world and his people “Israel realises its unique circumstances and its crucial responsibility for world peace. Israel calls the Palestinian people to return to their homes. The Jewish state is to become a state of its citizens where all people enjoy full equal rights”.

Though shocked by the sudden Israeli move, political analysts around the world are quick to realise that, considering Israel is the representative of world Jewry, such a simple peaceful initiative, won’t just resolve the conflict in the Middle East, it would also bring to an end two millenniums of mutual suspicions and resentfulness between Christians and Jews. Some Israeli right wing academics, ideologists and politicians join the revolutionary initiative and declare that such a heroic unilateral Israeli act could be the one and only total and comprehensive fulfilment of the Zionist dream for not only Jews have returned to their alleged historical home, they also have managed, at last, to love their neighbours and be loved in return.

As much as such an idea is thrilling and exciting, we shouldn’t expect it to happen any time soon, for Israel is the Jewish state and Jewishness is a tribal ideology driven by exclusiveness, exceptionalism, racial supremacy and a deep inherent inclination toward segregation.

For Israel and Israelis to become people like other people, all traces of Jewish ideological superiority must be suppressed first. For the Jewish state to lead a peaceful initiative, Israel must be de-zionised, it should first stop being the Jewish State. Similarly, in order for an imaginary Israeli PM to bring peace about, he or she must be de-Zionised first.

As things stand, Israel, in its current ideological state, is categorically unable to lead the region into reconciliation. It lacks the necessary ingredients that are needed in order to think in terms of harmony and reconciliation.

The only people who can bring peace about are the Palestinians, for Palestine , against all odds and in spite of the endless suffering, humiliation and total oppression, is still an ethically driven ecumenical society.

www.gilad.co.uk

The kindest cut

There has been much wailing and gnashing about public spending cuts recently. In all the Government's pronouncements, the most obvious savings to be made by getting out of Iraq and Afghanistan, plus the scrapping of our absurd, dangerous and otiose nuclear "deterrent", have been skilfully skipped round. Other state sacred cows remain safe from the chancellor's dogs; like the Arts Council - of which the most infamous arm is ACE, the English Arts Council. This body exists to support activities that would never survive in the real world, as they have audiences that vary from minimal to non-existent outside the clique of London critics, the tiny band of accountants and lawyers who fancy themselves as curators and the speculative collectors.

But who better than David Lee, founder and editor of The Jackdaw, for a good long time a great thorn in the side of the State Art establishment, to sum up the current state of affairs? The September/October issue is worth grabbing for its comprehensive expose of the whole business. I should say, the whole damn business:

The procrustean approach of the Government to reducing the deficit in our annual accounts will result in many hardworking people who perform worthwhile tasks being thrown out of work: some will lose their wits to anxiety. Necessary as some of these redundancies may be, it is still a sickening spectacle to watch ministers including the Prime Minister, all born into substantial inherited wealth and privilege, removing with a stroke of their pens the livelihoods of those who have nothing to fall back on. In the visual arts most of us will only suffer second hand. The overwhelming majority of artists will be unaffected by Government cuts to art budgets because they were never beneficiaries of its largesse in the first place, so selectively and prejudicially was it distributed. They are used to surviving without complaint. It is my view that visual arts budgets might be cut savagely as the effect for most will be invisible and the sufferers will be, in the main, those who can most afford it. Painters and sculptors will suffer not because the Arts Council's budget is cut but because those who buy their work have less or nothing left to spend.

...ACE has developed neurotic obsessions with things that have nothing to do with making great art. For example, we are informed, though God only knows for what reason, that "the number of organisations whose diversity action plans or equality plans are rated as a 'strength' have increased from 53.3% to 61.6%".

...The Serpentine, which employs two directors for four exhibitions a year, is surely now ripened for privatisation. It is the convenient outpost for the half-dozen most fashionable art dealers in the West End, whose artists are predominantly shown there. It costs the taxpayer a million pounds a year to further rubber-stamp the reputations of mainly foreign artists who are already well-known.

Read about more, including a list of Danien Hirst's ripoff sources and the ever popular Artbollocks page at www.thejackdaw.co.uk

Illustration by Andrew Gray

Israeli "Settlements" to determine peace talks

Although the so-called "settlements" of the Palestine West Bank are said to be determining elements in the ineffective and obscurantist peace talks, their growth is by and large taken as a basic right of the Zionists, as is the simultaneous strangling of centuries-old village life in Palestine, by these establishments, the Wall, the Jews-only roads and the checkpoints. This video shows how it is on the ground:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyTXHbIF6WI&feature=player_embedded