. I am happy to say that Scott Norvell’s article for the WSJ.com Opinion Journal, which mentioned this site and was discussed in this post, is now available to read online.
In other news, the BBC has completely reformed. All traces of bias have been swept away. In a spirit of sincere self-criticism for past errors the entire staff have all agreed to make over their worldly goods to Jeb Bush’s campaign fund and take up life as mendicant monks.
This may not be true. I haven’t been paying any attention to the news for the last few days so I wouldn’t know. If you have been paying attention, feel free to talk about it below.
Re: In other news, the BBC has completely reformed. All traces of bias have been swept away.
This is called ‘Hazon Acharit Hayamim’ or ‘the end of days prophecy’
Acharit HaYamim is not optimistic.
Thank God. Just one thing: who’s your source on this?
If the BBC were to reform, America’s mindless leftists would be set adrift and won’t know what to do.
Just as British leftist twits are easily identifiable (Orwell parodied them mercilessly), so are America’s leftist kooks. For the benefit of our cousins across the water who may not recognize the American variety of leftist twit, here’s how you identify one:
Look for an obvious American who tries to be more British than you are. Painfully fake British accent, overuse (and inappropriate use) of British slang, inconsistant or incorrect use of British spelling (look for such things as “harbour center” or “warriour”), and a childlike worship of the BBC including third-rate BBC programs from 30 years ago.
…look for such things as “harbour center”…
I say, old thing, that would be “harbour centre”. How very embarrassing.
(Last paper I wrote went to a British journal. I’ve only just recovered my center and my color.)
jgm,
The source was a mysterious bureaucrat known only as “Deep Pockets.”
Acharit HaYamim
You are right not to be optimistic.
Here is how the BBC has presented Israel over the last 48 hours:-
On PM (Radio 4) and the BBC TV news. An article on the proposed demolition of houses owned by Palestinians in East Jerusalem. Actually the houses are illegal in that they don’t have planning permission, but it is clear who the BBC favours. Not quite the same treatment that the BBC gives to “illegal housing” when it is in Jewish settlements, what?
Last night on PM we hear about a well known Israeli news presenter who has visited the Territories and made a film account. The BBC interprets this as an indictment of, naturally, Israel. And did James Reynolds, the BBC reporter really finish his report by saying that the film showed the reality of the “brutal occupation”? Was that his opinion or just the editorial line of the BBC?
This morning on Today we have the problem that British diplomats are making contact with Hamas “politicians”. There is a genuine problem as local elections have given some Hamas members power. How to deal with this, when the West and Israel are encouraging democracy? Well, what the BBC doesn’t do is ask the Hamas “politicians” why they want to blow Israelis apart, and whether the total destruction of Israel is a reasonable goal of a democratically elected party. Instead, and you know what is coming, the BBC interview an Israeli to chide them with the “you encouraged democracy, now you have Hamas elected, so it’s your fault and you have to deal with them” line. The Israeli repeatedly stated the facts of suicide bombing etc., but Caroline Quinn? simply ignored these points. How dare she?
But is Beeboid land, suicide bombers must be understood in the wider picture of the cycle of violence triggered by Israel’s “brutal occupation”.
Not so much a drip, drip, drip of anti-Israel reporting, but rather a gush, gush, gush.
Caroline Quinn even tried to quote – with approval – words of the late leader of Hamas, as if he was a man of peace, rather than a bloody murderer.
BBC Radio4
The Workaday World
Bill Morris examines how the world of work has evolved.
Bill Morris, that well known err…. oh yes, left wing trade unionist. This’ll be a good impartial program then. Was waiting for Jeremy Hardy & Sandi Togsvic to appear on the prog, they weem to be all over the Beeb at the mo spouting their left wing bias disguised as ‘comedy’.
Caught the first 15 mins of this on way to work. Pretty lefty stuff i.e. shareholders/bosses/capitalism = bad, public ownership/socialism = good
Maybe it got better…..?
Oh, caught Caroline Quinn this morning, pretty awful on the Isarael/Hamas interview. She lost control of the last discussion 8.55am re Zimbabwe though, that was amusing.
Re Today & Hamas – at least the interview provided the oportunity for it to be made clear that Hamas is committed to the destruction of the state of Israel.
All too often Palestinian spokespersons are allowed to refer to “the occupation” without it being made clear to the audience that “the occupation” refers to more than the West Bank & Gaza.
Hey Fellow Taxpayers,
The Today “Show” at 7am today was waffling on about Hamas (that wonderful group that provides aid to their fellow Palestinians when it is not murdering them for “collaboration”) and how the British For. Off. would start talking to them. But by 10am the weasels at the bbc were saying that the F.O. would not talk to a “militant” (i.e. terrorist) organisation pledged to the destruction of Israel. Is this the same F.O. that talks to the so-called political branch of the IRA and lets a culture of gangsterism thrive in N. Ireland? Could anyone out there enlighten us?
“Brutal Occupation”? Do us all a favour. The Israeli presence is basically as benign as the 7 year stay in Japan by US forces who converted the whole nation to baseball fanatics and very successful entrepreneurs. It’s typical of the bbc to blame victims of terrorism and those fighting against it. Arab culture is one of violence and disrespect for outsiders, not one of understanding and compromise. Just who does the bbc think are throwing the bombs and blowing themselves up?
“Arab culture is one of violence and disrespect for outsiders, not one of understanding and compromise.”
Understanding?
Compromise?
I don’t think it’s necessary to take sides to spot some contradictions there.
The definition of a head in the sand political ideologue is someone who thinks one side is ‘right’ in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.
They wave the flags at Rangers v Celtic games. Enough said.
Cockney, if you can no longer tell right from wrong then it is a little unwise for you to condemn others.
Though I’m not wholly sure about linesmen.
“The Israeli presence is basically as benign as the 7 year stay in Japan by US forces who converted the whole nation to baseball fanatics and very successful entrepreneurs”
Jeez, Susan. Even by your standards you’ve gone well into moonbat territory. Apart from the word “occupation”, there’s almost no similarity between the two cases.
The Japanese surrendered. The Palestinians haven’t in any meaningful sense. The Japanese assumed full sovereignty within seven years. The Palestinians haven’t etc etc
There’s nothing benign about either the occupation or the Palestinians’ opposition to it.
Unless almost 6,000 dead Palestinians and over 1,000 Israelis – just since the Sept 00 intifada – qualifies as “benign” in Susan’s bizarro world.
Let us not forget that the latest intifada was begun by Yasser Arafat after he turned down a political settlement that would have created a Palestinian state on the West Bank.
But you are quite right on one point, the Palestinians have not had their noses rubbed in defeat as the Japanese did – they should.
“Let us not forget that”
Let us not forget that any time anybody claims that one side is in the right and one in the wrong in Israel/Palestine, they being grossly simplistic.
If the Palestinians really were offered their own state, as it was pre-1967 and without strings, they would have taken it.
The Barak agreement was a compromise on the 1967 borders, and the Palestinians were within their rights to reject an offer that gave them less – and, crucially, much less of Jerusalem – than UN resolutions had given them.
Israel won’t give up land the UN has given them – quite rightly – why should the Palestinians?
PS – What would you have suggested Israel did to really rub the noses of the Palestinians?
I would suggest all out war and crushing defeat. It worked with Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, it’ll work with Radical Islam.
As far as I’m conscerned the Palestians washed out any moral claim they might have had in blood decades ago.
Funny isn’t it how self-defense invalidates the Israeli cause but murder has no effect at all on the legitimacy of the Palestinian?
Anonymous – “Israel won’t give up land the UN has given them…”
The UN *GAVE* Israel land? They did? Those UN sods- why don’t they also give Palestinians land?… and then everyone would be happy – wouldn’t they! :p
“What would you have suggested Israel did to really rub the noses of the Palestinians?”
Merely existing seems to already be more than enough!
Anonymous, there was NO Palestinian state pre-1967. If we want to go back in time, the people currently living in the West Bank and Gaza would be living in Egypt, Lebanon, and Jordan.
It’s great that some people follow the facts and think for themselves instead of merely following the BBC spin on news.
I can’t think of any countries that started a war with the purpose of wiping out another – then lost – and were allowed to set the terms of a peace. Israel made the mistake of attempting to placate the Arabs by suing for peace and giving back conquered lands in that war – as they did with both Egypt and Jordan. As far as I know Israel was the first winning nation to ever sue for peace. It’s only the media propaganda that gives the Palestinians any ‘right’ to expect they can set the terms.
Since France is becoming more and more Islamic, the UN should give part of it to the Palestinians. They can call this new state ‘Frankenstine’.
Teddy Bear
That was cute.
You know about Bush and Blair, well Denise just made me a Blushing Bear ;o)
All you of the ignorant persuasion: You want to blow your minds away? Go back to the first intifada of 1987 and ask how many of the Palestinians who died since then have been murdered as “collaborationists” by their own gangs! Anyway, just when was there ever a “Palestinian” state? What people formed their language, culture, religion etc. in Israel? Hey, here’s a clue for the BEEBOIDS — they were not Arabs!
“Anonymous, there was NO Palestinian state pre-1967.”
I wrote the land the UN had given to the Palestinians – i.e. [that part of] Transjordan.
And yes, Joe – the UN *gave* Israel land. The state of Israel was created when the British terminated its mandate and Palestine was partitioned.
“It’s only the media propaganda that gives the Palestinians any ‘right’ to expect they can set the terms.”
Rubbish. Under your reasoning any victor in any war should be allowed to retain or annex land indefinitely. East Germans would have had no “right” to knock down the Berlin wall and move towards self determination. Or is it just media propaganda that gave the East Germans any ‘right’ to wish for democracy?
The ignorance here seems to surpass even that of Auntie employees!
In 1922 Britain quite illegally hived off 70% of the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine, and created a monstrosity called Trans-Jordan. Then in 1948 Britain finally threw in the towel, but only on the remaining 30% which became Israel. You won’t hear this on the BEEB.
You won’t hear it on the BEEB because it didn’t happen. It’s all there in Article 25 of the League of Nations Mandate on Palestine:
“In the territories lying between the Jordan and the eastern boundary of Palestine as ultimately determined, the Mandatory shall be entitled, with the consent of the Council of the League of Nations, to postpone or withhold application of such provisions of this mandate as he may consider inapplicable to the existing local conditions, and to make such provision for the administration of the territories as he may consider suitable to those conditions, provided that no action shall be taken which is inconsistent with the provisions of Articles 15, 16 and 18.”
In September 1922, the British presented a memorandum to the League of Nations stating that Transjordan would be excluded from all the provisions dealing with Jewish settlement. Approval for the resolution was passed on 16th September 1922.
What Anon. is ignoring is that the Palestinians and their Arab neighbors *rejected* the UN partition and started the first Arab/Israeli war. So why, I ask, do we have to be bound by it today?
As far as I’m concerned the Palestinians deserve nothing.
Well Roxana, it’s a pretty moot point given that Israel doesn’t act within the boundaries of UN resolutions and has annexed and illegally built on Palestinian land.
The natural endpoint of both yours and Teddy Bear’s arguments are that the law of the jungle should apply – that as long as Israel can defend itself, it can keep whatever it has gained from its neighbours because it got attacked first.
A pretty unconvincing guarantee for Israelis, don’t you think in the long term? The trade off of international legitimacy of its actions vs a forecast of being able to defend itself forever.
There is no such thing as “Palestinian land”. Period.
The Arab nations attacks on Israel caused the boundary problems – after all those attacks, Israel has every right to demand secure borders.
And the Arab nations’ neglect of their “Palestinian” brethren and their financing of jihadist terrorism is largely to blame for the present mess.
But the prime responsibility lies with the Palestinians themselves. They have to pull themselves out of the pit of corruption, economic chaos, ignorance and bloodlust into which they have sunk. The BBC lways propounds the “victim” view – which simply helps sustain the nonsense and the bleating.
“There is no such thing as “Palestinian land”. Period.”
If you mean there is no such thing as a Palestinian state, I agree. Otherwise, you are plainly misrepresenting the land occupied by Israel.
“Israel has every right to demand secure borders.”
No arguments there, but as always, the devil is in the detail. Israel has a strong case to resist Syrian calls for the return of the Golan Heights until it has achieved a period of sustained peace with Syria. But a considerable part of Israel’s movement into Palestinian territory is not motivated by security. For example, you don’t allow families in settler groups to move into the Gaza Strip or the West Bank in the name of security.
Rubbish. Under your reasoning any victor in any war should be allowed to retain or annex land indefinitely. East Germans would have had no “right” to knock down the Berlin wall and move towards self determination. Or is it just media propaganda that gave the East Germans any ‘right’ to wish for democracy?
Anonymous | 08.06.05 – 1:49 pm | #
It has nothing to do with my reasoning – it is a fact. If you knew anything at all about history, instead of just mouthing off leftist ideals that have no reason or logic to them, but they ‘sound good’, you would know it as well.
Give 1 ONE other country in the whole of history that has been attacked by a neighbouring country, been victorious, and allowed the defeated aggressor to set the terms of peace.
If you dont reply I will assume it’s because you’re too embarassed.
For the most part you will find that the aggressors, such as China, USA, Britain, Arabs, Muslims, Romans, Greeks, Egyptians, took over the lands they conquered and held on to them for as long as it was economical.
FYI – The Berlin wall did not come down because the East Germans had a desire for democracy, If the Soviet Union had not been dissolved they would still be wishing for it, and they were NOT given the ‘right’ to knock it down.
Anonymous, you appear to be under the illusion that the UN has some god given right to tell nation states what to do.
International law is only meme for a set of variable rules based on individual treaties, which nation states only give the time of day to when it suits their purpose to do so.
Because the “UN” says or does something, does not make that something legitimate, apart from to those who wish to believe so.
The land of Israel is land both purchased and won in battle in latter years… whether the “League of Nations” or “Great Britain” or the “UN” deem it given, taken or under dispute is only words. The only thing that determines the land of Israel is the physical control of it and its borders by its own people and their border neighbours.
Where nations are concerned: Land belongs to those who control it – which is why Israeli settlers can and do exist in land controlled by Israel.
Teddy Bear:
“Give 1 ONE other country in the whole of history that has been attacked by a neighbouring country and allowed the defeated aggressor to set the terms of peace.”
A strawman. I haven’t suggested that Israel should let the Palestinians set the peace.
I have suggested that the Israeli victories do not give them carte blanche to annex what they like indefinitely.
There are, however, several historical examples of victors working with aggressors to return land, institute new government and rehabilitate the economy prior to a swift return of independence or sovereignty.
It isn’t media propaganda that gives the Palestinians an expectation of what land Israel isn’t entitled to, any more than an Israeli in West Jerusalem has an expectation of land ownership based on the media.
If you don’t reply, I’ll assume that you are simply so embarrassed at having to derail the thread into another irrelevant strawman argument whereby I’m sure I will have apparently suggested that Israel should have let Yasser Arafat run the Knesset, Shin Bet and the IDF.
And finally, to Joe:
I don’t think God set up the UN, but I can check.
“The land of Israel is land both purchased and won in battle in latter years”
Land purchased wasn’t “Israel” any more than Spanish villas owned by ex-pat retirees are on “British” land. Similarly, Israel does not “own” the land it has taken in battle any more than Russia “owned” East Germany.
Anonymous
You are still wrong. Israel does have carte blanche to retain lands it won in defending itself. It gave most of the lands won from Egypt back, because Egypt started to play sensible. It offered most of the rest to the Palestinians – but they decided to p-lay murderous rather than sensible.
End of story.
You simply have to grasp that all this is in Israel’s gift. It is NOT in the gift of the UN or anyone else. Prattling on about the N is a waste of your breath.
Life has moved on a long way since 1967. Nearly 40 years. Get used to realpolitik. Israel will do what Israel does. Likely they will be far more magnanimous than many would wish, after all the Palestinian murders and the wish by many Arabs to see Israel eliminated totally. Period. Swallow it.
I’m in awe of your tough words, J_I_L.
However, you confuse realpolitik and right, and don’t acknowledge that realpolitik is temporary. The realpolitik is that Israel’s ability to do what it chooses is determined by US support, both financial and political – and as long as it has one or both, it can operate as it does currently.
Realpolitik is also increasingly likely to dictate that as China, and possibly India, grow economically and demand a greater share of oil production that the US will be forced to make some concessions to the main oil producing countries.
Those concessions may well involve Israeli policy towards the Palestinians. I accept realpolitik, but would question that the belligerent justification of it is wholly misguided in the case of Israeli policy.
Rather than support Israel’s long term security, it is incredibly damaging to it. The realpolitik is that if the US were unable to offer Israel the security it needs, Israel would need international legitimacy for its territorial claims, which it does_not_have.
China couldn’t care a flying whatsit about Israel – except as a trading partner. And the US is not going to walk away from support for Israel against the surrounding states that have preached its elimination. So you are whistling (or something) in the wind in hoping for some major international changes.
I happen to believe that realpolitik and right coincide fairly closely as regards Israel. There is no dichotomy. It is the Palestinians and their backers who have been wrong and stupid, who have largely prevented a peaceful settlement. We know how this suits the politics of the Arab regimes as a distraction from all their internal evils.
People like you give further encouragement to Palestinian obtuseness. Which has the effect of harming ordinary Palestinians. I don’t think you have any conception of how decent Israel is to its Arab citizens – or how this basic decency would be extended to a peacable Palestinian state. Your UN-preachy stuff reminds me of the poem about the butterfly, the toad and the harrow.
Anonymous
We get all your stuff week in week out from the BBC – from Orla et al. To judge from the BBC News, the point of view I prefer simply does not exist here in Britain.
THAT is measure of the endemic bias at the BBC. THAT is the measure of how they are running their own agenda.
“People like you”
And that’s about it, isn’t it? When all arguments fail to convince, you can’t resist throwing names about.
Of course China couldn’t give a damn about Israel. This is *precisely* why when countries like China look to secure oil supplies, political pressure will come to bear on Israel through the US. Realpolitik, John.
Spare us the lectures on Israeli decency. Nobody, not the Arabs or the Israelis come out smelling of roses. Israel hasn’t killed 6k Palestinians vs 1k dead of its own through some kind of patrician benevolence, and Israel’s actions in Lebanon, notably in 1982, are not “basic decency”, regardless of Arab and Palestinian warmongering and terrorism.
“To judge from the BBC News, the point of view I prefer simply does not exist here in Britain”
At last, we agree. You are correct. Your views on this topic are in the minority. Israel, and Israeli policy are not popular. Choose to translate as endemic bias at one broadcaster, if you will. We’ll just have to disagree on that one.
I anot throwing names around. I am simply criticising your tired arguments. Arguments we hear all the time on the BBC. Arguments that have led precisely nowhere, other than causing the Palestinians to continue to delude themselves.
And you bringing the Lebanon-in-1982 into it is typical. Always looking for arguments to throw against Israel – often false arguments, including a lot of what is about the events in Lebanon. (Those camp-deaths were carried out by Falangists from Lebanon itself, part of the inter-communal strife that had followed the arrival of tens of thousands of Palestinians ejected from Jordan. )
It is always so facile to criticise Israel for defending itself. Where are your attacks on the suicide bombers ? Or do you feel there is some morality in what Hamas and Hezbollah promote – and are still promoting ? Where are the BBC reports that there have been dozens of attempted suicide bomb sneak-throughs in recent weeks ?
Anonymous
You suggest that because a lot of people do not like Israel, this is justification for BBC bias.
1 You appear to accept the bias. QED. This site is about whether the BBC tilts the balance, and it is good to see that you concede this fact.
2 The endless bias of the BBC against Israel helps explain its unpopularity.
3 It is a Charter duty of the BBC to present a balanced view, especially in highly complex situations. Instead, the BBC usually whitewashes the Palestinians, demonises the Israelis and then makes out that the UN and the EU are the great panjandrums when they are actually a fifth wheel.
“And you bringing the Lebanon-in-1982 into it is typical. Always looking for arguments to throw against Israel – often false arguments”
Is a US major from the Marine Corps Command and Staff College an unbiased enough source for you?
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1987/SGC.htm
“For three days the
Israelis guarded the entrances to the camps of Sabra and Shatilla
while the Phalange went on a rampage the result of which has been
well publicized. The massacre of Palestinians brought the return
of the Multi-National Force of French, Italian, and American
units to Beirut”
You are going off tangent again, John. This isn’t about criticising Israel defending itself. I’m happy to condemn suicide bombing. But, you haven’t supported with any meanignful fact this balls about the Israelis being characterised by a “basic decency” in stark comparison to the behaviour of Palestinians.
The point here is *how* Israel defends itself. If you think actions in Lebanon in 1982 and 6,000 dead Palestinians vs 1,000 dead Israelis, bearing in mind that the Palestinians are using indiscriminate terrorism and the Israelis are targeting only aggressors, is an acceptable tally for an army acting with “basic decency”, say so. We’ll just have to disagree on that one.
“You suggest that because a lot of people do not like Israel, this is justification for BBC bias”
Absolutely not, and you are using poor reading comprehension to set up a strawman.
My position is clear. I dispute the bias. I dispute the negative perception of Israel is guided by a biased reporting of Israel by the BBC.
Anonymous
If you think people like Guerin and Platt don’t exhibit endless pro-Palestinian bias, you must think black is white.
I do not argue that Israel, its actions or policies are all good. But they are not all bad – that is the way some BBC reporters portray them. And this demonising gets in the way of a settlement.
Let’s put it this way. I think that the spleen against Israel shown by such reporters has damaged the prospects of a settlement. And thus costs lives. Their cheap sneering at Israel encourages the wrong elements in Palestinian society.
And BBC licence-payers are forced to pay for this bias.
I don’t buy into the arguments about Guerin and Platt or the others, despite having read this blog for over a year.
We aren’t going to agree on this, so it’s only worth me explaining why:
1) I dispute the extent to which Israel is characterised negatively, rather than neutrally or positively. Going further, I think the methodology for “uncovering” bias by this site is often poor and circumstantial.
2) B-BBC commenters and critics fail to make an adequate distinction between facts that show Israel poorly and facts which are specifically chosen for that effect, mistaking the former for the latter.
3) I don’t think the BBC presents Israel differently to the consensus of reporters from Sky or ITN – which is usually dealt with by the non-answer of “but they aren’t funded by tax.”
“A pretty unconvincing guarantee for Israelis, don’t you think in the long term? The trade off of international legitimacy of its actions vs a forecast of being able to defend itself forever.”
So far the latter has worked out well.
The only way Israel can get ‘international legitimacy’ is by self destruction – it’s not worth it.
I just love your argument that land taken in a defensive war is illegally occupied. I wonder if you’d say the same if it had been Israel that was occupied? But in that case the question would be moot there’d be no refugees because there would be no survivors.
“So far the latter has worked out well.”
Sure, but Israel could and should have both.
I’m hedging here, but I would guess Israelis want to build the country on more secure foundations than just current military supremacy over a rag tag of Arab opponents.
“I just love your argument that land taken in a defensive war is illegally occupied.”
Love away. I still can’t see an explanation why land won in a defensive war entitles the victor to keep it indefinitely. And there is still considerable weight behind the view that the occupation of the Gaza Strip and West Bank are illegal.
“I wonder if you’d say the same if it had been Israel that was occupied”
Seeing as you asked, yes.
What you keep ignoring Anon. is the simple fact that the Palestinians have *rejected* violently every deal offered them from the 1948 partition to Oslo 2000.
Israel does all the conceeding and gets only more attacks in return. What will it take to make you face the fact that your darling Palestinians don’t want *any* Jews anywhere in the Middle East?