By Marc J Sirois / Daily Star staff - Tuesday, February 05, 2008

Despite its tiny size and minuscule population, Lebanon`s capacity to stir the emotions of people around the world is a time-tested constant of Middle East politics. Unfortunately, however, those who seem to pay so much attention to this country do not always manage to learn anything about it.
Take, for example, David Cameron, leader of Britain`s Conservative Party and aspirant to Gordon Brown`s job as prime minister of the land that gave the Magna Carta to the world and refuge to Karl Marx. In his zeal to burnish his credentials as a "defender of democracy," Cameron has decided to turn one Ibrahim Moussawi - academic, journalist and proud supporter of Hizbullah - into a bogeyman.
In November 2007, Cameron made it his business to demand that the British government deny Moussawi an entry visa required for him to speak at a conference organized by the Stop the War coalition, an organization that opposes the "bombs away" approach to international relations. At that time, Cameron averred on the floor of the House of Commons that Moussawi`s status as "head" of Hizbullah`s "viciously anti-Semitic" Al-Manar television station meant that he should not be allowed into the country.
To its credit, the British government declined to be goaded into the same craven behavior as that evinced by its Irish counterpart a few weeks earlier. The latter`s decision to ban Moussawi came as something of a surprise. The Irish, after all, have considerable experience with foreign occupation and might have been expected to show a little more tolerance for someone like Moussawi. According to Irish media reports, though, Dublin succumbed to pressure from Washington.
Whatever the cause of the Irish decision, Cameron`s effort failed in Britain and the target of his scorn was warmly received when he spoke to people for whom democracy is something other than a rhetorical cudgel used to batter those with different points of view. In fact, Moussawi`s message - which included both well-reasoned criticism of Israeli policy and impassioned rejection of faith-based hate - was such a hit that he has been invited back for a new speaking tour.
Now Cameron has launched into his act again, complete with the same lines - and a few others for good measure. Moussawi, he says, is "dangerous and divisive" because he "spouts hate" and "should not be allowed into this country. Full stop." 
A few problems, both general and specific, come to mind. First, do folks like Cameron even know that the vast majority of people who work for Al-Manar are, in fact, Semites? Or do they just not care? Yes, yes, the term "anti-Semite" is one which has "entered" the English language (and some others). Verily, though, the inaccuracy with which it is generally employed is so profound that its utility is even less than that of other words that have changed over time. "Gay," for instance, used to mean "happy." Try using them interchangeably today. Or take the verb "to despise:" In the 19th century, it indicated contempt for someone, but today it means something closer to strong dislike. The distinction might not matter much when discussing someone like Cameron, but it certainly can on other occasions.
Now, seeing as how Jews have always been and continue to be a tiny minority of Semites, it makes very little sense to say "anti-Semite" when we mean "anti-Jew." It makes even less sense when what we should be saying is not "anti-Jew" but "anti-Zionist." Finally, it is outright foolishness to use the term when the target is himself a Semite - like Moussawi - who happens (not unreasonably) to disagree with Zionism.
Another problem is the argument that Al-Manar is prejudiced against Jews. It is true that the station airs a fair bit of programming that qualifies as propaganda, and it has an unfortunate tendency to lend credence to the unfounded theories of people whose arguments sound a lot like, well, Cameron`s. The same can be said, however, of many Western television stations, although these tend to have slicker editing that dresses up speculation as surety and prejudice as principle. Also, it is manifestly not opposition to Jews and/or Judaism that animates Al-Manar and the party that controls it, Hizbullah: Both have truck with Jewish individuals and groups that are willing to look past the propaganda and engage with "the other."
Then there is the matter of Moussawi`s own association with Al-Manar. He used to work as foreign news editor for the station, and he also hosted a political talk show, but he has never been its "head" and has not been employed there for about two years; he now runs a Hizbullah publication called Al-Intiqad ("Criticism") which has published material by yours truly that, while not hostile to the resistance and its allies, was not altogether kind either. As anyone who knows him can attest, the man`s attitude and demeanor are anything but "dangerous," "divisive" or "vicious." He is articulate and rational, and recently received a PhD from a reputable school in England. And on Monday, the stuff of Moussawi`s character received something of an important endorsement from another bastion of Western intellectual influence when the American University of Beirut signed him up as a lecturer. For this AUB deserves credit for disregarding the inevitable rantings of critics who will argue that it should honor its American roots by stifling free speech - and Moussawi deserves the same for being open-minded enough to accept employment at such an institution. 
None of this has stopped Cameron from resurrecting his spurious charges and boneheaded demand. Nor has it stopped many Western journalists from helping to make the Tory leader`s charges credible by parroting his erroneous description of Moussawi as the man who runs Al-Manar. If Cameron cannot get even simple facts straight, it says a lot about his fitness to make more complicated judgments - but where is the "objective" Western media to correct him? 
Cameron`s real problem is that despite the difficulties that Brown has had since taking over from Tony Blair last year, the Conservatives have no real confidence that they can unseat the prime minister`s Labor Party in the next elections. Blair infuriated no small number of Labor stalwarts by teaming up with US President George W. Bush to invade Iraq in 2003, but he also left the party in a good position to retain its majority in the House. The economy has been humming for years, and Cameron`s own support for the war in Iraq means he can hardly turn the debacle into a campaign issue. On these and other issues, Blair`s "New Labor" may mean that in the next elections, the Tories will be outflanked on both the ideological and electoral fronts.
This has left Cameron scouring the woodwork of government policy for an issue that he can use to increase his own prospects. Fear is always a great motivator, and many Britons have been made more susceptible to such tactics by terrorist attacks carried out in recent years by people claiming to act in the name of Islam. Moussawi is associated with Hizbullah, which has been widely demonized in the Western press since the summer 2006 war with Israel and the power struggle that has followed in Beirut. For a politician trying to gain traction among a populace that sees him as the Tory version of a Blair whom many people have been trying to forget, the combination has to be tempting.
Cameron and his pollsters may be right in their view that they can scare the British public into voting for him. They are wrong to conclude, though, that profiting from lies turns them into truths, and/or that banning a messenger can silence what he has to say. The truth is that right-wing leaders of countries like Britain have the potential to achieve great diplomatic breakthroughs because they have the credentials to engage with rival powers and other entities without being vulnerable to charges of "appeasement." Margaret Thatcher`s authorization of talks with the Irish Republican Army comes to mind, but she had lot more guts than Cameron, not to mention brains. Full stop.

Marc J. Sirois is managing editor of THE DAILY STAR