I have to respectfully disagree with my colleague Kerry Buttram over his last post. The BBC does some very good work on Zimbabwe, that does it proud. As I wrote last February on this blog
Plaudits to the BBC, though, for continuing to do good work on Zimbabwe. Another investigation is on News 24 at the moment.
I think some more focus on the latest developments in Zimbabwe would be in order, but as commentator Mark has pointed out in comments, BBC correspondents have done numerous reports at considerable risk to themselves to show what is happening in Zimbabwe. For that, I say (as before) well done.
Scott,
I don’t think we’re that far apart really. (See my comments to Mark.)
Regards, Kerry
The BBC does, although it does get accused from time to time of ignoring [insert atrocity/dictator] when in fact its size means it tends to keep focus on Sudan, Zimbabwe etc even when they disappear off the front pages of the newspapers.
On Zimbabwe, it also worth noting that the BBC has been banned, so anything it does produce is more laborious than if it had a team in place.
In general, the British media have tended to be pretty good on Zimbabwe. I still don’t know how Peta Thorneycroft continues to write what she does for the Telegraph, while Peter Oborne made a very good documentary for Channel 4, I think.
In the latest front-page post, Mugabe defends township crackdown (15:13 GMT, the BBC clearly displays its displeasure towards Robert Mugabe.
In that post, Mugabe gets the first word, while the UN, which ‘describes [the eviction operation] as a new form of “apartheid”‘ gets the final say.
Whoever the Beeb is backing is always given what the pros call the ’emphasis position’ (i.e. the last word, the position after the ‘BUT…’, etc).
The BBC have been cheerfully slagging off Zimbawe since they were banned from reporting there.
However.
Now that Gordon ‘Stealth Tax’ Brown is ranting about African aid, clearly, the BBC have decided to play down the issue of mad African kleptocrats in the interest of bashing George Bush’s refusal to give money to them.
Thought-process of average Beeboid Minion: Mugabe =Annoying Imp. George Bush = Great Satan. Join up the dots, people.
OFF TOPIC:
BBC website’s story Israel’s first crematorium opens states that “[But] secular Jews may also show an interest – especially as some of them view the ritual practice of burying Jews in shrouds, rather than caskets, as degrading.”
As a secular Jew that’s news to me!
Am I an ignorant secular Jew or is this something thrown in there by the BBC to confuse us even more?
I’ve lodged the following complaint:
Your story on the opening of Israel’s first crematorium includes the following paragraph:
“But secular Jews may also show an interest – especially as some of them view the ritual practice of burying Jews in shrouds, rather than caskets, as degrading.”
As a “secular Jew” myself I find this statement surprising, if not entirely unbelievable. I have never thought of the traditional form of burial, in a shroud, to be degrading in the slightest, neither have I ever heard this opinion expressed by any of the many other “secular Jews” I know.
I would be grateful if you would provide a named source of this outlandish opinion which seeks to give the wholly false impressio that among “secular Jews” there are those who consider their own traditions to be “degrading”.
Biodegradable – did you actually make a formal complaint? That the BBC dared to suggest that some Jews might prefer to be cremated instead of buried?
What will the police say?!
Yes mark b, I did complain toi the BBC via their contact page, that the BBC dared to suggest that some Jews find traditional Jewish rituals to be degrading, without substantiating or sourcing that claim in any way whatsoever.
Your sarcasm isn’t appreiated either. For what its worth I’ve thought of having my remains cremated (once I’m dead of course) but not because I consider the traditional form to be degrading.
And another thing, traditional Jewish burials usually include a casket as well as a shroud, not as the BBC says in shrouds, rather than caskets.
However, what ALL Jews find degrading, is the increase of Jewish cemeteries that have been vandalised in recent years, with little reported by the BBC on this phenomena. I wonder who can be responsible for the vandalism that the BBC doesn’t want to alienate?
BBC balance means “there are many more Muslims in Britain than Jews; So let’s slant the events when we make our news”.
Imagine what would happen if the Imams told their flock not to pay the TV License fee or (dare I say it) let it be known that the BBC was anti-Muslim. Heaven forbid – Jews are expendable.
I do apologise Biodegradable. I just think you’re being pedantic, but I’m sure all your criticisms are perfectly valid, reasonable, etc, etc.
Teddy Bear – You seem to be suggesting that it is only Jews that will find antisemitic attacks degrading. I would consider myself as a believer in common decency; these attacks obiously go against all of that, and I find these attacks repugnant and reprehensible. However what also runs against my sense of common decency is unreasonable and otherwise rather silly attacks on the BBC.
Which ran a story on desecration of Jewish graves only today.
Where the BBC does appear to fall down on its coverage of Zimbabwe is when it makes the workings of the UN look like a complete farce. I’ve read of a UN food programme wallah giving a press conference on food aid being channeled through Mugabe and insisting on the blatant lie that Zimbabwe’s famine is due to drought and not Mugabe’s disasterous and confining food aid to his supporters. This should be a major news story but (please correct me anyone if I’m wrong – I’m living in Spain and just have the web to go by) at the BBC and its not. Equally Zimbabwe being voted back onto the the UN Human Rights Cttee should have been a major news item leading to studio debates between those who say it shows something rotten at the UN’s heart and its defenders. Guess the BBC dont like unanswerable arguments being aired that undermine its leftist shibboleths. We dont want to see that great anti-American Kofi Annan discredited after all, do we?
Teddy Bear – You seem to be suggesting that it is only Jews that will find antisemitic attacks degrading.
You miss my point, what they find degrading is the lack of coverage given to it by the ‘independant’ BBC. You even post an article which proves the point – In January 2002 three youths were convicted of damaging headstones and in August 2003, 20 gravestones were pushed over in an attack treated by police at the time as racially motivated.
Youths??? just what sort of ‘youths’ are these? Not to mention many other racially motivated incidents on the increase against Jews in the UK which weren’t mentioned.
As for However what also runs against my sense of common decency is unreasonable and otherwise rather silly attacks on the BBC. You haven’t heard the half of it. Hitler came to power because so many Germans who felt they had common decency like yourself could excuse what he gave rise to – by commission and ommission.
Read the webpages of the BBC about “Israel and the Palestinians”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/middle_east/2001/israel_and_the_palestinians/default.stm to see the proportion of stories from the Israel point of view and those of the Arabs. Also look at the number of profiles given – out of 19 only 3 are Israeli. The stories about terrorist organisations are made to seem as they are benign religious freedom fighters, and justify their actions against a ‘brutal oppressor’.
YOU DON’T KNOW THE HALF OF IT and spare me your ‘common decency’, or your attempts to excuse this Islamist media propaganda source that would make Goebbels proud.
mark b,
I thank you for your apology, but I don’t believe I’m being pedantic or silly wanting to know what the BBC’s source is for suggesting, nay stating as fact, that there are Jews who find their own rituals “degrading”. Perhaps they got the idea from self-hating Jew like Naom Chumpsky or Gilad Atzmon.
Furthermore, what are others such as Christians, Moslems, and all the other faiths who bury their dead to think of Jews who allegedly see a common form of burial as “degrading”.
My apologies for derailing this thread.
Teddy Bear,
Bravo!
TY Bio – you do a pretty good job yourself °º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°°º¤º°°¤º ¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸ ø¤º°`°°º¤¤øø
A rose for Teddy Bear —<–{(@
-=ô;ö=-
~(_8^(|) DOH
Not that I particularly want to interrupt this beautiful homoerotic love fest, but in answer to your points:
—
Hal
Zimbabwe was voted back onto the UN HRC
no it wasn’t
Remember: unsourced hearsay and conjecture isn’t fact!
And part of the reason for the food shortages in Zimbabwe is drought (the larger cause being of course Mugabe’s destruction of the agriculture industry).
—
Teddy Bear
Youths? What sort of youths? I have no idea. How many different sorts of youths are there? The title of the story was “Racist gang attack Jewish graves“. I’m not sure how that’s supposed to show the BBC being antisemitic!
Hitler came to power, etc…
I call Godwin’s Law!
I disagree with your premise that the BBC exhibits a pro-Palestinian bias. Stories of Palestinian terrorist bombings ALWAYS make the headlines. Stories of Israeli retaliations also normally make the headlines. There’s very little bias there, and many people use the allegation of “antisemite” to gag any critics of Israel. Sorry, I’m not antisemitic, and neither am I Islamophobic, but I can see that both the Israelis and Palestinians are at fault here. The Palestinians have got to stop blowing up kids, the Israelis have got to stop their retaliations (which also inevitably kill kids) and the occupation of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. NO side is better than the other here. Both are to blame.
Incidentally, search results on BBC News online:
“Palestinian terrorist”: 1,279
“israeli occupation”: 789
—
Biodegradable
What is so wrong with some Jews not liking some practices of their religion?
Irshad Manji, the self-proclaimed Muslim “refusenik”, abhors certain practices of her religion.
Many Catholics also strongly disagree with the Catholic Church’s line on condoms (which has caused terrible suffering in Africa and South America).
It’s possible to dislike, even abhor parts of your faith, while still being rigidly attached to that faith, as both Irshad Manji and many pro-contraception catholics are.
I personally view the concept of being left just under the soil to rot and be eaten by worms as degrading (not to mention fairly disgusting). Why should secular Jews not feel the same way?
mark b,
Not that I particularly want to interrupt this beautiful homoerotic love fest, but…
I do not assume that “Teddy Bear” is male, one of my best female friends is called “George”, neither do you have sufficient data to acertain my gender. For my part there was no sexual inuendo intended or implied in our little exchange of compliments.
Incidentally, search results on BBC News online:
“Palestinian terrorist”: 1,279
“israeli occupation”: 789
One of those results for “Palestinian terrorist”, taken at random, does not contain the word “terrorist”, only “Palestinian”:
Blair hails Mid-East peace move
I’d bet that most, if not all of those results only contain “Palestinian”.
A search just for the T word returns 2,186 results. The first 2 pages of which show nothing related to Israel, or “Palestinians”. That’s not surprising because the BBC has stated that it doesn’t like the word and prefers terms like “activist”, “militant”, etc. when reporting on Israel/”Palestine”
What is so wrong with some Jews not liking some practices of their religion?
What is wrong is that we only have the BBC’s word that it is in fact the case. You have quoted a named Muslim and referred to the well documented and debated issue of condoms and the church. The BBC has injected this unsubstantiated item of folklore and you, I presume a non-Jew, are quite happy to believe it without question and add it to your collection of “knowledge” about Jews. That’s what wrong.
Your personal views on burial, or mine, are not the issue here.
If there are Jews, secular or otherwise, who share those feelings with you then the BBC must name them, or at least attribute the claim to some group more precisely identifiable than “secular Jews”.
If I were to write that “moderate Muslims” feel that they should celebrate Christmas with their infidel neighbours by inviting them to the mosque to eat roast pork and drink Champagne wouldn’t you want me to prove it, or to your mind would it just seem to make sense somehow?
homoerotic love fest
This speaks volumes about you – be sure you won’t cry when you get similarly denigrated – especially because you have little logic and reason going for you.
Youths? What sort of youths? I have no idea. How many different sorts of youths are there? The title of the story was “Racist gang attack Jewish graves”.
Precisely – don’t you think you should know what sort of youths they were, or would you rather not know if they were BNP or Muslim youths sent by their Imam to perpetrate these acts? Obviously it doesn’t make any difference to you, but then you’re not affected – oh yes it offends your delicate sensibilities doesn’t it. Better not rock the boat eh, lets keep things simple – after all it’s not your graves being desecrated. Better that than have you’re view of the world disturbed.
But my ostrich friend, don’t be telling those that are affected by these acts, and the failure for the STATE media to make it known, which leaves Jews further at risk, that they are being silly for perceiving this bias.
I’m not sure how that’s supposed to show the BBC being antisemitic!
You twist my words, I didn’t say anti-semitic – if anything the BBC would be “couldn’t give a shit about semitic”. They are PRO-MUSLIM because they will not be a dominant world media organisation, (or at least that’s what they believe) without them. Get the difference?
Ever see a ‘Hard Talk’ or Paxman interviewing a Muslim militant? They would curtsy if it would get them further up their asses.
Speaking of asses – when we are on the subject of racist attacks against Jews, and we get on the subject of Nazi propaganda, don’t be quoting Godwin’s law. You might think it makes you appear intellectual, actually it makes you an offensive buffoon for which any intellectual debate is futile.
Just carry on thinking the BBC is balanced and fair, because inwardly it doesn’t make a difference to you one way or the other. Remember the adage – What goes around comes around. You’ve yet to see the way that this will affect your life and world – wait and see.
[Edited to return a stretch of bold type to normal type – NS]
Edited By Siteowner
Teddy Bear wrote:
“You haven’t heard the half of it. Hitler came to power because so many Germans who felt they had common decency like yourself could excuse what he gave rise to – by commission and ommission.”
Amen and double amen Teddy. How many of us know otherwise thoroughly decent people who have been completely brainwashed by the BBC and take a proto-genocidal view of Israel, blaming the victim for crimes against humanity committed against them?
Mark B
If you would prefer the term ‘Human Rights Commission’, here you are:
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu2/2/chrmem.htm
“And part of the reason for the food shortages in Zimbabwe is drought (the larger cause being of course Mugabe’s destruction of the agriculture industry).”
As Margarat Thatcher once said “The most dangerous enemy in politics is the plausible half-truth”. You know perfectly well that until Mugabe’s Jihad against white farmers regardless of drought Zimbabwe remained the ‘bread basket’ of southern Africa. Ergo, drought or not, the need for food aid stems soley from Mugabe’s disasterous reign of terror. The UN Food Programme adamantly insisted that the need for massive food aid had *nothing to do with Robert Mugabe. This is a big news item and worthy of serious studio debate on the state of the UN.
I note your tactics of trying to elide valid arguments.
You also used it later on over Israel, equating Palestinian terrorist acts targetting Jewish civilians with legitimate Israel self-defence measures targetting terrorists. To try to play the ‘equalateral’ game over this really shows the depth of your moral bankruptcy. As Milton gave the Devil to say: “I will conquer by subtlety or by force”.
Still, nice to know you feel such a need to post here. Shows what a threat you regard this site as. Thanks.
Could people tone down this comments thread which is veering between very funny and excessively insulting.
I don’t really want to get into the dispute – but I cannot resist one small, very specific point. Marc b did a search on the words “Palestinian terrorist” and used the high number of results to suggest that the BBC was willing to call a terrorist a terrorist. Not so. Those very two words have come up before. For an earlier post I did a search of the BBC news site for “Palestinian terrorist(s)” and checked out how the words were used in between ten and twenty results. The result? In all but one case, if memory serves, the phrase “Palestinian terrorist” was used in quote marks coming from Israeli or other speakers. And the only exception was about two years old.
mark b
Thanks for posting that the BBC has no pro-Palestinian bias, as well as equating morally between both sides.
I’ll be as polite as I can – you’re naive.
Now I’ll get on with ignoring your tedious ramblings.
Entries for the ongoing ‘get to Israel v Palestine from a completely unrelated topic in the fewest number of words’ competition have been getting more and more impressive recently.
Maybe you chaps should market it as a party game. Fun for all the family!
OT:
Reading this report on Nirex’s attempt to find a big hole to bury our nuclear waste in, I can’t help but feel the BBC is trying to suggest something:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/uk/4079542.stm
Anyone work out what it could be ?
The dreadful happenings in Zimbabwe seems to have slipped from the BBC headlines today. No endless-loop treatment as was given to minor incidents at Abu Ghraib.
And of course on-going tragedy of the Sudan and the UN’s neglect is blithely ignored. The BBC would rather see Guantanamo as the real moral outrage.
Re: mark b – I disagree with your premise that the BBC exhibits a pro-Palestinian bias.
This is an exchange between a license-fee payer (Charles Martel) and the BBC online editor I’ve once saved, judge for yourself:
‘Sir
I’d like to bring to your attention a graphic example of why the BBC
receives much criticism with regard to its reporting on the Middle East conflict. As I write this letter, the BBC has on its website, two articles about killings in the Middle East and Africa. One story, about a single Palestinian man killed while he approached a border fence is entitled “Israelis Shoot Dead Palestinian”. The other story, about 100 people killed in a bombing raid by the Sudanese government is entitled “Sudan Troops in Darfur Offensive”. The details on the killings do not appear in the headline nor in the following paragraph printed in bold.
If this example of unbalanced reporting were an aberration, one might suggest that it was due perhaps, to poor discretion being exercised by BBC website editors on this occasion. This type of asymmetric reporting however, is routine for the BBC. When Israelis are involved in the deaths of Palestinians — one in this case –, the BBC employs direct, active language in the headline and body of its articles to describe the incident and assign unambiguous culpability to Israel. By contrast, when reporting on the killings of Israelis by Palestinians — or in this case, the murder of 100 civilians by the government of Sudan — the language is typically passive and circumspect.
As a frequent reader of the BBC website (and a TV license payer in the UK), I find the BBC’s bias transparent and deeply offensive. It also represent a clear violation of your public charter to be fair and balanced in your reporting’.
This was the BBC’s reply:
‘As the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the conflict in Darfur take place in completely different contexts, it is clear that different editorial approaches need to be taken. The Middle East editorial team tries – as far as possible – to address each deadly act of Israeli-Palestinian violence in a balanced and objective way, with a focus the team tries to apply to all the countries in its region, even Iraq. That close-up focus is much less likely in African conflicts of which Darfur is an example which are dealt with by the Africa editorial team.
In addition, headlines are not to used to assign culpability, but rather to sum up the story in as brief a way as possible (in a template of 31-33 characters). This inevitably results in an avoidance of longer words, which may be why there may be a slight imbalance. Nevertheless a search through the BBC News website archive produces headlines where:
1. Palestinians are killed without mentioning an agent:
Five Palestinians killed in Gaza (30/12/2004)
2. Israelis are killed with an agent mentioned:
Suicide blasts kill 11 Israelis (14/03/2004)
3. And where there have been multiple (Palestinian) deaths which are not mentioned in the headline
Major Israeli incursion in Gaza (25/10/2004)
To which I replied in turn:
1. Why should the “focus” of BBC reporting be different for the Middle East than for Africa such that your ME editorial team takes a “close-up focus” while your African editorial team takes a — presumably — “remote” focus? Do the deaths of 100 Sudanese merit less personal attention than the death of one Palestinian?
2. The suggestion that the substantive difference in headlines is due to space limitations is risible. Please note that the headline, “Israelis Shoot Dead Palestinian” contains 31 characters while the headline “Sudan Troops in Darfur Offensive” contains 32 characters. The latter headline could have just as easily read, “Sudan Army kills 100 in Darfur” which would have required only 30 characters and would have been a far more accurate rendering of the incident.
3. The headline you have provided as an example of the BBC identifying an agent, “Suicide blasts kill 11 Israelis” (14/03/2004), does nothing of the sort. In fact, it overtly fails to identify a Palestinian as the perpetrator of the murders.
As demonstrated, your arguments attempting to justify the different handling of the two stories are weak and facile. The truth is that the BBC maintains a distinct editorial bias when reporting news of the conflict in the Middle East, deliberately maligning the Israelis whenever possible. This is an odious practice for any news organisation, but particularly so for one funded by the taxpayer and pledged to a policy of fair and impartial reporting’.
P.S Re: Biodegradable – My apologies for derailing this thread.
As you can see, the above shows the relation between the Middle-East and Africa as reported by the “unbiased beeb”.
OT. R4 Today prog was good value this morning. Firstly, lets play “Guess the Guest”. Picture the scene, a Today prog production meeting in the early hours….. “ok, we need a commentator to discuss song lyrics and their meaning viz-a-viz political happenings etc, anyone got any thoughts who might fit the bill?!”
(there’s a clue in the question)…..
…wait for it…..
That’s right, BILLY BRAG !!
Oh how I laughed – B-bbc don’t even try to hide their love of the lefty commentators. They should have had Freddy Forsyth on to balance things up a bit.
Another fun piece was when Naughtie spat out his cornflakes in shock/disgust when Gordon Brown said Maggie Thatcher would agree with him that the UK should keep the veto re EU rebate. Quite a classic, I’m sure the i/v is probably online for those who missed it.
Hal,
I apologize for using foul language in a previous comment thread. If it is of any use, I take it back and for whatever reason I foolishly chose to do so it was uncalled for. Sorry.
Same goes for Ed for it was on his post.
By the way, Ed has an excellent post on the subject of anti-Semitism and the beeb (which goes beyond that actually) here: Aunty’s Anti-Jewishness
Re: DumbJon – Anyone work out what it could be ?
I give up, it’s just too nuanced. LOL.
—
biodegradable
I do not assume that “Teddy Bear” is male, one of my best female friends is …. etc, etc
I think you’re taking it a little seriously.
“Palestinians, etc… taken at random”
On the 8th page of results. Come on, we have the same search box. I can see that you obviously didn’t take it at random, you sifted through 8 pages of results to find ones that didn’t include the word “terrorist” in order to satisfy your prejudiced view.
Are you saying that in actual fact there are NO Jews ANYWHERE that dislike some practices of their religion? Would that be totally impossible?
What would you like the BBC to say? “Graham, a secular Jew from Harwich, finds certain parts of his faith degrading.” Would it be better if they put it like that? Of course not, people would just laugh. They would be like “OK, why should I care about some random bloke from Harwich?”. It doesn’t add anything to the story, so it still stands. There’s nothing wrong with that statement.
And biodegradable, I don’t have a special little collection of “knowledge” about Jews. Sorry and all that. And knowing that some Jews might prefer burial neither diminishes nor augments my view of Jews. I honestly couldn’t give a toss if a few Jews preferred cremation. Good for them. And I don’t see why anyone else is going to care (except obviously you in your own little absurdly pedantic way).
As for Muslims, they don’t exactly like Jews much anyway at the moment! In any case I can’t see how a few secular Jews being against burial will bring shame on the whole Jewish communuity!
The analogy regarding Muslims eating pork and drinking alcohol is ridiculous. There is no comparison between the two. If Muslims want to be buried, that would also be fine by me. I really don’t care.
—
Teddy Bear
re homoeroticism, denigrating, etc
Feel free to sling away, but it was a friendly jibe. and of course I have logic and reason going for me, we just happen to disagree on most things. You think everything the BBC does is evil and biased, I think you’re being silly.
Re Youths
It quite clearly said that it was racially motivated. Whether they were in the BNP or whatever little fantasy you might want to come up with, doesn’t really matter. either way, it’s obviously a dreadful crime. The BBC quite clearly said that it was racially motivated. And how many other broadcasters covered the same story?
Here are some more stories on antisemitism:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4322053.stm – 6th June
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4271783.stm – 17th February
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4254005.stm – 11th February
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4205597.stm – 25th January
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/4182649.stm – 17th January
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/4023441.stm – 18th November
The BBC is hardly avoiding the issue!
I’m sure you read Melanie Phillips in the Daily Fascist and assume everything she says to be true, but the fact is, she’s talking rubbish. There is no anti-Jewish conspiracy in the UK, it’s pure paranoia.
“state media, etc”
ok, so it’s obviously Tony Blair’s fault for what’s published in the BBC which is independent of government? right…
And I’m not saying that “Jews” are being silly for perceiving this bias, I’m saying that YOU are being ridiculous and absurd in attempting to find bias in everything you watch on the BBC. If you happen to be a Jew, great, well done, but don’t shame a whole religion just because of your own pedantries!
“They are PRO-MUSLIM because they will not be a dominant world media organisation, without them.”
Yes, because the Muslims are soooooooo powerful aren’t they?
“Ever see a ‘Hard Talk’ or Paxman interviewing a Muslim militant?”
No, but that’s largely becase terrorist tend not to come out in the open and give TV interviews. Imagine the 9/11 hijackers going on MSNBC or CBS or whatever before 9/11 and doing an interview…
“About quoting Hitler”
it makes be an offensive buffoon if I think you bringing Hitler’s rise to power into the debate is ridiculous? Sorry if I offended you! Next you’ll be getting offended if I say I don’t want to talk about Pol Pot’s rise to power! It was totally irrelevant to the subject that we discussing. Yes, the nazis were racist, but that’s about as close as it got. And no, I wouldn’t “accept by ommission” Hitler coming to power in the UK. Hence my obvious previous condemnation of these antisemitic attacks.
“How many of us know otherwise thoroughly decent people who have been completely brainwashed by the BBC and take a proto-genocidal view of Israel, blaming the victim for crimes against humanity committed against them?”
That doesn’t mean that those people would accept a genocide against Jews! I certainly wouldn’t and while I know people who are highly critical of Israel, I know none who would want to kill all Jews!
And yes, both Israel AND Palestinians have committed crimes against humanity.
—
Hal
Yes, Zimbabwe was elected BY AFRICAN STATES! Hardly Kofi Annan’s fault! Indeed, he wants to abolish the body!
And no, the need for food in Zimbabwe doesn’t stem solely from Mugabe. Mugabe has destroyed much of the agriculture industry, and drought has done the rest. Two causes, both of which the UN accepts. However, the WFP, as a NGO, has to keep favour with Zimbabwe (as hard as that may be) in order that they can carry out their job in Zimbabwe. If they complained about the situations in Zimbabwe, like everyone else, they’d be kicked out. It’s really very practical, though I assume you’ll still see this as some weird UN conspiracy. Instead, the WFP leaves this job to the UNHCHR (http://www.unhchr.ch/huricane/huricane.nsf/view01/1749DDDE09141EBDC12570150047335A?opendocument)
And yes, I do equate Israeli bulldozing of houses (known as collective punishment) and shooting children (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1355604,00.html) and journalists (http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,948548,00.html) with palestinian suicide bombers.
And no Hal, I don’t see this site as a threat. Do you see my criticism as a threat?
max: wonderful. well done.
mark b
Your attempt at moral equivalence is repugnant.
Day in, day out, Palestinians try to get through to commit suicide bombings. Even now, in a time of supposed peace. Most attempts are stopped, fortunately, but many succeed. All this is deliberate murder or intended murder.
You suggest this is no worse than incidents where Palestinian children get killed. But this is to suggest that Israelis DAY IN DAY OUT set out to deliberately kill these children. That is a total lie. Yes, children are sometimes killed – but usually in conditions of serious disturbance which have been whipped up by evil Palestinian adults who WANT to see children killed, to support their twisted cause. Those adults are often lurking behind them – with guns.
Your moral equivalence, which the BBC reflects, is disgusting. It equates deliberate killing or attempts to kill with reactions to serious civil disturbance.
mark b’s post where he quoted Teddy Bear
“”How many of us know otherwise thoroughly decent people who have been completely brainwashed by the BBC and take a proto-genocidal view of Israel, blaming the victim for crimes against humanity committed against them?”
That doesn’t mean that those people would accept a genocide against Jews! I certainly wouldn’t and while I know people who are highly critical of Israel, I know none who would want to kill all Jews!”
Brings to mind a story my father told me of the days following the German surrender.
By that time news of the discovery of the concentration camps had percolated down to rank & file troops and he said he asked a German POW he was in charge of if he knew what had been going on.
Yes, he was told, everybody knew what was going on.
Did everyone agree with it?
No, most people didn’t but no-one wanted to put themselves in a dangerous position by objecting to it. After all there were a lot of other things to worry about and they were only Jews after all?
Did you know any Jews?
No I come from a small village. Jews all live in the big cities but we heard all about them from the newspapers and the radio.
Any comments mark b?
I do not assume that “Teddy Bear” is male, one of my best female friends is …. etc, etc
I think you’re taking it a little seriously
I think you should seriously analyse what logic and reason led you to believe that “Teddy Bear” and “Biodegradable” are of the same sex, not to mention the mechanism which causes you to giggle at the very thought of signs of affection expressed between two people (whom you assume to be) of the same sex.
“Palestinians, etc… taken at random”
On the 8th page of results. Come on, we have the same search box. I can see that you obviously didn’t take it at random, you sifted through 8 pages of results to find ones that didn’t include the word “terrorist” in order to satisfy your prejudiced view.
We may have the same search box but I used “quotes” to search for the phrase while you searched for occurrences of the two words, ie:
Your 152 search results for “”Palestinian terrorist””
The example I gave should be the 5th one down.
Are you saying that in actual fact there are NO Jews ANYWHERE that dislike some practices of their religion? Would that be totally impossible?
I’m saying I don’t know, in my first post I said that, but so far nobody has shown up here with proof.
If the BBC were to state that “according to scientists the earth will explode in a great ball of fire next Wednesday” wouldn’t you want to know a little more about their credentials?
A professional news organization like the BBC has a responsiblity and duty to substantiate whatever it “reports”. You see, I believe that paragraph came from the muddled head of some BBC junior, rather like your assumption that “Teddy Bear” and I are lovers.
There are Jews who believe that Israel should not exist, remember the ones who look like Orthodox rabbis waving “Palestinain” flags outside the hospital in Paris where Yasser Arafat died (of AIDS). If there are Jews who consider burial in the ground to be “degrading” I want to know who they are.
What would you like the BBC to say? “Graham, a secular Jew from Harwich, finds certain parts of his faith degrading.” Would it be better if they put it like that?
I would like the BBC to tell the truth. If Graham from Harwich said that to the BBC then it should be stated so that we, the readers, may decide for ourselves whether Graham is (a) representative of “secular” Jews or (b) a raving nut-case with a history of mental illness who also finds wearing a pair of trousers “degrading” and has been fined on several occasions for exposing his private parts to young children.
Enquiring minds need to know!
Of course not, people would just laugh.
You laugh anyway.
They would be like “OK, why should I care about some random bloke from Harwich?”. It doesn’t add anything to the story, so it still stands. There’s nothing wrong with that statement.
By “they” you obviously mean you, “mike b”, who says why should I care that the BBC makes unsubstantiated claims about a group to which I (Biodegradable) belong.
And biodegradable, I don’t have a special little collection of “knowledge” about Jews.
Oh but you do, as you’ve displayed amply in your comments on Israel.
Sorry and all that. And knowing that some Jews might prefer burial neither diminishes nor augments my view of Jews.
Ah, finally, the crux of the matter! You now know this to be so because the BBC said so! Just as you know that Israel is the opressor and the “Palestinians” the victims. heck, even The Guardian says so!
I honestly couldn’t give a toss if a few Jews preferred cremation. Good for them.
You’ve chosen to miss the point yet again – its not about whether or not a few Jews preferred cremation, its about the claim that they prefer it because burial is “degrading“! A claim that I refute and believe the BBC should substantiate or withdraw.
As for Muslims, they don’t exactly like Jews much anyway at the moment!
Only “at the moment”?
Of course, according to you and the BBC any dislike Muslims have for Jews is attributable to the behaviour of the Israeli government and therefore understandable!
Hatred of Jews is one the basic pillars of that death cult called Islam.
References to Jews in the Koran
In any case I can’t see how a few secular Jews being against burial will bring shame on the whole Jewish communuity!
Perhaps you’d see things more clearly if you removed your head from up your anus.
If Muslims want to be buried, that would also be fine by me.
But that’s the whole point you cretin! Muslims are buried following very similar dictates as those of Judaism, ie; the body is wrapped in a shroud and should be in contact with the earth.
The BBC has informed Muslims that there are Jews who think that practice is “degrading”, not un-ecological, not impractical, not uneconomical, but DEGRADING.
I really don’t care.
So shut the f**k up and piss off!
As for Muslims, they don’t exactly like Jews much anyway at the moment!
Quite an understatement. But you are right in that whether or not there are Jews who see burial as degrading, and no matter what Jews do or don’t do, Muslims will continue to, ummm, not “exactly like” us.
This from the man Ken Livingstone says is not an antisemite:
Sheik Yousuf Al-Qaradhawi: Yes to Dialogue with Christians, No with Jews.
“The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct “Palestinian people” to oppose Zionism. For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa. While as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem.”
– Zahir Muhsein, PLO executive committee member, 1977
j_i_l
Whether or not the Israeli army intends to kill children is not the point. I wouldn’t for a second say that infanticide is institutionalised in the Israeli army, for example. My point is that they must surely know that firing missiles into densely populated areas and bulldozing houses is bound to cause suffering to these children. If the Israeli army is concious that it might kill children when it carries out its incursions into the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, and it carries out these actions anyway, then the blood of those children is on their hands. Simple.
Now, the way the terrorists go about it is different, but it has the same end result. They intend to kill children, certainly, whereas the Israelis don’t kill the children deliberately, but ultimately they still BOTH kill children, like it or not.
dogsdanglybits
my comments: how is that relevant? It’s quite obvious from those comments that he didn’t really care about the persecution – the MURDER and TORTURE of Jews. Nobody I know would tolerate that! Would you? What point are you trying to make?
Biodegradable
Fine, if you are so sexually insecure that you can’t take a bit of good humoured gay banter then I won’t do it anymore. OK? And by the way, neither you nor “Teddy Bear” have said that you’re women. It was your confrontational style of writing that led me to believe that you’re both men. If that’s wrong, or you feel that I’ve discriminated against you on the grounds of your sexuality (whatever that might be), sorry. Complain to the EOC, whatever. Get over it.
Re Palestinian terorrists: I searched without quotes because (you can check back at my previous comments) my intention was to show you how the BBC reports both palestinian suicide bombings AND israeli activities. whether or not the words “palestinian terrorists” appear together is fairly irrelevant in showing what I intended (partly because there are so many other terms used to describe them, e.g. hamas terrorist group, etc). Pretty much all of the ones that I found when putting palestinian terrorist in without quotes included both words, and were relevant to the search term.
re “earth blowing up”
Of course I wouldn’t believe that, because that’s absurd. And if the BBC stated that then it would surely be a bigger news story, so there would be more information on it anyway. The fact is that thing about burial etc really is an irrelevance. The reason why I took it at face value was that I know of many other occurences in other religions where people don’t follow traditions so strictly. I don’t see why it should be any different in the case of Judaism.
I would point out that the only people who say that Arafat died of Aids are right-wing, predominantly Israeli websites. But anyway, I’ll leave it for your imagination to continue to enjoy.
You laugh anyway.
Yes I do. At you. And your level of emotional outrage that the BBC should dare to suggest that some people might not follow one practice of their religion.
And fair enough, if you want to care (in a non-gay way) about Graham from Harwich then go ahead. But I can’t see that many people would also care about him and his opinion.
“Of course, according to you and the BBC any dislike Muslims have for Jews is attributable to the behaviour of the Israeli government”
A strawman. I didn’t say that.
“Hatred of Jews is one the basic pillars of that death cult called Islam.”
No, it isn’t.
“Hatred of Jews is one the basic pillars of that death cult called Islam.”
I disagree. Read Irshad Manji: The Trouble with Islam.
“If Muslims want to be buried, that would also be fine by me.”
Sorry, my response was rushed – a typo. I meant if they want to be cremated.
“The BBC has informed Muslims that there are Jews who think that practice is “degrading””
Yes, secular Jews. BBC has probably also previously “informed” Muslims that there are Brits who think this practice is degrading.
“So shut the f**k up and piss off!”
Lovely.
mark b
The Palestinians DELIBERATELY set out to kill civilians.
The Israeli missiles are aimed at Palestinian terrorists. They are NOT aimed at civilians. Often it is only the terrorists who get hit. But, sadly, sometimes civilians get hit too.
The Isrelis would not be firing missiles if the terrorists were not trying to kill Isreli civilians. The mssiles are only fired at terrorists – who are usually found to be carrying weapons. It is called self-defence. It is justifiable. It is not pre-meditated and targeted murder of civilians.
But you will never recognise this. Just like the BBC shies away from the accurate description “terrorist”. You equate murder with self-defence.
Sick, sick, sick. And appeasement to naked terrorism.
JiL
There is nothing uglier than the left revealing itself.
JiL
No, I quite obviously did recognise the difference that the Israelis don’t intend to kill children, but the Palestinians do.
The end result, unfortunately, is the same.
tsunami’s kill children. Drunk drivers kill children. Are they all war criminals?
No, tsunamis are natural disasters, but drunk drivers of course are criminals.
btw, front page of independent today on the right – holocaust survivors grave wrecked. the left is hardly avoiding the issue. the times, telegraph, mail and express however have no mention of it at all on their front pages. does that make them antisemitic?
The end result, unfortunately, is the same.
Fine, if you are so sexually insecure that you can’t take a bit of good humoured gay banter then I won’t do it anymore. OK?
Now I get it. You must be gay. That’s OK then, that’ll explain it.
You are the one who brought sex into it. I am in fact so sexually secure that I have no problem with gestures of affection between two human beings regardless of gender or sexual orientation, even including handshakes, hugs and/or kisses on the cheek. You, on the other hand seem most uncomfortable (insecure).
And by the way, neither you nor “Teddy Bear” have said that you’re women.
Nor have we said that we’re men, or one of each.
It was your confrontational style of writing that led me to believe that you’re both men.
Don’t you see how stereotyped your thinking is?
my intention was to show you how the BBC reports both palestinian suicide bombings AND israeli activities.
Did you notice how Israeli’s simply die while “palestinians” are always killed?
whether or not the words “palestinian terrorists” appear together is fairly irrelevant in showing what I intended (partly because there are so many other terms used to describe them, e.g. hamas terrorist group, etc).
It is very relevant that “palestinians” are never called terrorists by the BBC. I don’t believe that you will find Hamas described as a terrorist group by the BBC anywhere, except in the context of phrases such as “… described by Israel and the US as a terrorist group…”
re “earth blowing up”
Of course I wouldn’t believe that, because that’s absurd.
I find the unsubstiated and unsourced claim that jews find something (anything) “degrading” to be absurd, so I want to know who it is that the BBC alleges holds that view. Don’t you get it yet?
And if the BBC stated that then it would surely be a bigger news story, so there would be more information on it anyway.
The story about the opening of the first crematorium in Israel, to be fair to the BBC, did contain a lot of information. My problem is with a paragraph that, without the neccesary attribution, is disinformation, and even possibly inflamatory.
The fact is that thing about burial etc really is an irrelevance.
Quite. How many times have I said that this isn’t about comparing methods of disposing of corpses as much as the BBC making unsubstantiated claims about the opinions of “secular Jews”?
The reason why I took it at face value was that I know of many other occurences in other religions where people don’t follow traditions so strictly. I don’t see why it should be any different in the case of Judaism.
There you go again, a perfect example of accepting something the BBC tells you “on face value” because your prejudices already predispose you to accept lies without question.
I would point out that the only people who say that Arafat died of Aids are right-wing, predominantly Israeli websites.
There are plenty of medical experts of undetermined political alegiance who justify the diagnosis on purely scientific grounds. But don’t let the truth get in your way.
You laugh anyway.
Yes I do. At you. And your level of emotional outrage that the BBC should dare to suggest that some people might not follow one practice of their religion.
You really are as thick as two planks aren’t you? The BBC is free to suggest whatever it wants, but it must back up its claims with facts, and it hasn’t.
And fair enough, if you want to care (in a non-gay way) about Graham from Harwich then go ahead.
There you go again with your sexual innuendoes. Are you gay? Do you hate gays? Are you worried you may be gay? Do gays make you feel uncomfortable and insecure? What exactly is your problem mike?
FYI I am not gay, but for the moment I won’t reveal my gender. I’ll leave you a 50% chance of guessing correctly.
“If Muslims want to be buried, that would also be fine by me.”
Sorry, my response was rushed – a typo. I meant if they want to be cremated.
For the last time: it is not about anybody’s right to have their corpse disposed of in any way whatsoever, be it in accordance or contrary to their religious beliefs. It is about the BBC putting words into people’s mouths.
BBC has probably also previously “informed” Muslims that there are Brits who think this practice is degrading.
“probably”? My oh my, you place such faith in the BBC that I’m touched. Perhaps you’d kindly provide us with a link to a BBC article that talks about it?
“So shut the f**k up and piss off!”
Lovely.
And close the door on the way out, please.
Come back with a link or something that backs up the BBC’s claims about us “secular Jews”. I’m sure a quick google should be sufficient.
Have a nice day!
Call me pedantic…
Generally, in free democracies, an individual will form an opinion based on what he or she has seen and heard in the media. That presents a special challenge to the media to provide its audience with material that can serve as the basis for an informed opinion. The power of the media is such that slanted reporting can have an enormous impact on public opinion.
Re: Independent.
So the Jews of Britain need not worry now that the left is on the case. The rise of AS incidents in the UK last year, Howard portrayed as Fagin, Sharon caricatured as eating babys, King pelted on a Jewish memorial day together with Holocaust surviors (which was somehow never reported on the beeb), Le Monde convicted by a French court of anti-Semitic incitement (I’m sure you’ve read all about it over at the beeb), Brit academics boycotting Jewish academics, MP’s calling for the destrauction of Israel in the middle of London and on and on – All of this is surely nothing to worry about now that the independent exposed this phenomenon on his front page sidebar.
It’s useless to argue with a self-professed ignorant on this issue.
You have a case in regard to the beeb’s coverage of Zimbabwe.
You have no case when it comes to the beeb’s biased coverage of the ME.
Unless you think that – A BBC reporter who sympathetically cries (and writes about it) when a leader of one side in a conflict she’s supposed to be objective about, or another BBC reporter who participates in a Hamas rally saying that the media “will fight shoulder to shoulder with the Palestinian people” – is balanced reporting.
The Indie front page today showed the kind of reporting on Zimbabwe that the BBC has lacked. Judging by BBC news slots this evening, what is happening in Harare is a non-issue.
I’m pretty convinced that Mark B has his own agenda and is not worth the effort to debate with. I think it goes beyond ‘leftist leanings’, although I could be wrong. Any open minded individual sincerely interested in seeing whether there was any justification for the views we express would be far less ‘committed’ to an opposing view, as he is. An open-minded individual when looking at the BBC website of Israel and the Palestinians must be struck by the disparity between articles given to the Palestinians and those to Israel. Not to mention the imbalance between the number of Palestinian profiles (16) to Israeli (3) without even going into the content.
Yet he continues to raise points in desperation to prove the absence of BBC bias, or push his , which are promptly knocked down by subsequent posters, only to sidestep again in similar fashion, whilst using jibes and slurs in an attempt to unsettle his opponents. The very fact that he considers us opponents speaks for itself. He even asserts guesses as facts in the hope that nobody else will know better. One example is that of Hard Talk and Paxman, both have interviewed Muslim militants, and I have seen some of those interviews. Yet he goes on like it is unlikely there ever was such a thing.
For most of us, the fact of BBC bias is based on personal knowledge – knowing the facts behind a particular story and seeing the way they dealt with it, then seeing a pattern to this direction. Knowing there is a purpose for this bias, makes us seek and conjencture as to what might be the reasons. Personally I would rather save energy and effort for those who really have an open mind, than one who is bent on demeaning or opposing efforts, other than to unmask him or her.
Oh, and just for the record, unless I’m mistaken, Bio and I were engaged initially in mutual appreciation, and I can state freely that I admire and appreciate many of the posters here. This escalated into a bit of graphic art, not easy to do on a site like this (_____:^)
This (insert your own epithet here) refers to it as a ‘homoerotic love fest’, then later claims it was only done lightheartedly. Freud would have a field day with this one.
As to my gender – I’m a Teddy Bear :o)