There’s something truly disturbing\u00a0about the fact that British prime minister David Cameron’s efforts to decide\u00a0how\u00a0the media refer to\u00a0Islamic State\u00a0are\u00a0being taken seriously. So seriously, in fact, that 120 MPs have backed the idea that the BBC should not\u00a0use the name\u00a0Islamic State and refer to the group by\u00a0the Arabic acronym\u00a0“Daesh” instead. Cameron’s\u00a0argument is that Islamic State is neither Islamic nor a state.<\/p>\n
The coverage has implied that the BBC is\u00a0taking a brave editorial stand and refusing to kowtow to Cameron’s diktat.\u00a0But there are already signs that the\u00a0BBC\u00a0may\u00a0capitulate. \u00a0In a\u00a0statement, the BBC said: \u201cWe call the group by the name it uses itself, and regularly review our approach. We also use additional descriptions to help make it clear we are referring to the group as they refer to themselves, such as \u2018so-called Islamic State\u2019.\u201d<\/p>\n
Let’s put this debate in a little perspective. The Israeli army calls itself the “Israel Defence Forces”, or “IDF” for short. And yet it is not “Israeli” in the sense that it does not respresent all Israelis, especially the fifth\u00a0of the population who are Palestinian, and it is not a defence force because its primary role is to enforce a belligerent occupation of\u00a0Palestinians. So according to Cameron’s logic, he and the media should be referring to it as the “Zionist Occupation Forces”. I wonder if he can get a 120 MPs to sign up to\u00a0that idea.<\/p>\n
Meanwhile, can we imagine the BBC issuing a statement saying that, though they refer to the Israel Defence Forces by the name they use for themselves, the broadcaster tries when possible to be clearer by using additional descriptions such as “the so-called Israel Defence Forces”?<\/p>\n
And while we are on the subject, the world might look a very different place if groups could only call themselves names that reflected their true character. Not least Cameron’s own party would have to abandon its name the “Conservatives”. Since Margaret Thatcher began\u00a0leading the party\u00a0\u00a0in the\u00a0mid-1970s, there\u00a0has been\u00a0nothing “conservative” about the party in the sense that it believes in conserving tradition. At that point it became a party of neoliberal revolution, breaking up British society’s major institutions and implementing\u00a0changes\u00a0to allow financial speculators to sell off the family silver.<\/p>\n
So let us agree that Cameron can insist on the BBC calling Islamic State “Daesh” when he also insists on\u00a0the broadcaster referring to the Conservatives as the “Revolutionary Neoliberal Party”.<\/p>\n