Martin Walker of United Press International had an interesting article in The Times a few days ago, beginning:
Despite a catalogue of examples to the contrary, the governors insist there is bias against the Palestinians
THE OFFICIAL REPORT for the governors of the BBC on its coverage of the Palestine-Israeli conflict found predictably that there was “was little to suggest systematic or deliberate bias” but then went on to list a series of measurements by which the BBC could be said to be biased in favour of Israel.
This produced mocking guffaws in my own newsroom, where some of the BBC’s greatest hits – or perhaps misses – remain fresh in the memory. There was the hagiographic send-off for Yassir Arafat by a BBC reporter with tears in her eyes and that half-hour profile of Arafat in 2002 which called him a “hero” and “an icon” and concluded that the corrupt old brute was “the stuff of legends”.
There was Orla Guerin’s unforgettably inventive spin on the story of a Palestinian child being deployed as a suicide bomber, which most journalists saw as a sickening example of child abuse in the pursuit of terrorism. Guerin had it as “Israel’s cynical manipulation of a Palestinian youngster for propaganda purposes”.
The rest of it is worth reading, though I’m not sure I’d go along with his conclusion entirely!
To Gary Powell,
my reaction is only due to the fact that there are soooo many lies and /or unfounded facts (as the above), being circulated as facts by far too many people (e.g. the 9/11 ‘conspiracy’ is all over the web-see LGF today),
anyway, I think this is not the place to discuss historical truths (there are numerous websites for that) unless it is related to the BBC.
History lesson for dummies:
Levant Jewish land
Becomes Christian after death of Christ
Becomes primarily Islamic after Islamic invasion.
Crusades is a response to that invasion.
Christians lose to Islamic invaders.
Muslims play victim card since then.
(Shame they always leave out the bit where the death of the Mongol khan saves Islam from going the way of the Dodo)
Muslim Levant occupied by Ottoman Turks until 1918.
The Turks ruled for 401 years.
The Brits had a mandate from 1920 to 1946. (26 years)
Part of that mandate was for “The establishment of a national home for the Jewish people”
To that end 78% of Palestine was handed over to the Muslims in which to form Jordan. (The Jordanian constitution to this day forbids Jews from living there.) And yet no Muslims have complained about handing over that. The remaining 22% was to be the homeland for the Jews. But alas the Muslims complained. Hence the Brits got into something of a mess as they tried to appease everybody. After WW2 the European countries.(primarily France) encouraged their Jews to emigrate. The Brits tried to stop this influx of humanity and because they did were classed as anti Semitic by the Non Muslim world. (Have a look at how they interned them in Cyprus while trying to getting their own countries to take them back)
Britain in 1947 sick at the duplicity shown by the Europeans handed over her Mandate to the UN. The UN formed Israel. It was the UN who split that remaining 22% of Land into 3 states (Gaza, West bank and Israel) the UK did not vote for the creation of Israel. She abstained. In 1948 the Arabs neighbours told their fellow Muslims in the war zone to get out of harms war as they wished to crush the Jews once and for all. They failed. However Gaza was absorbed into Egypt and the West Bank was absorbed into Jordan.(Strange how the BBC doesn’t mention that fact)
In 1967 Israel captured Gaza and the West Bank during the six day war. (Funny how Al Beeb loves to portray this as Israeli aggression) But leaves out the any hint of the Iraqi armoured brigade which was on its way to Egypt (before Israel attacked) in which to support the intended Egyptian surprise attack. Oh dear the Muslims were beaten to the punch and the world cries foul play.
But hey what am I talking about according to the BBC’s ‘The history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.’ Only the Jews are guilty of launching an invasion.
The Arabs didn’t invade in 1948; “troops from neighbouring Arab nations moved in.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/03/v3_israel_palestinians/maps/html/israel_founded.stm
Moved in Al Beeb?
Ah yes that may explain why outnumbered in every field bar spunk the Jews kicked arse. Because the Arab neighbours only moved in.
As if that wasn’t enough they omit the 1973 ‘Yom Kippur war’ you know the war in which Egypt and Syria invaded. The war in which Israel readied her nuke option, which America defused by re-supplying Israel with weapons. (Funny how the BBC omits that.) But most salient of all, it was the watershed which allowed Saddat to claim victory. (Islamic logic? They lost more land and kit than they did in 67) and instigate peace.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/03/v3_israel_palestinians/maps/html/default.stm
No wonder people presume the Jews are evil. The BBC has removed anything that tells the truth as History recorded. (No mention of 3 Nos at the Khartoum Resolution in 1967 BBC???)
P.S
I’m not Jewish
P.P.S
I was born a Muslim and still have a Muslim name.
P.P.S.S
I have read Harriet Beecher Stowe and no I am not subservient.
Rachel
Believe me you have my deapest sympathy. The irony is that you still live in a western democratic free country, if only just. Imagine how much shit you would be haveing to deal with if you was not. Frightening to say the least. The fact that these untruths are propergated by our own state media, makes me as paranoid as I claim Israelis are. That really is the truth.
pounce
Great stuff. Why do we have to relie on pounce to give us a history lesson? We should all know all that already. I personaly blaim the BBC and the state controlled education system for British peoples general ignorence on this matter. But the really important thing is that if you dont know the FACTS of the matter your chances of coming to a correct and usefull practical solution is greatly diminished. Which is one big reason why we are all still in this mess.
pounce
A good historical summary – totally at variance to the line put out by the BBC.
One strand you omit is that after the Arabs kept failing in frontal military attempts to destroy Israel, the PLO resorted to some 3 decades of ant–Jewish terrorism, in the Middle East and elsewhere.
a bit of history
1917 Balfour declaration
Then British Foreign secretary gave the go ahead for the creation of a Jewish state
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration,_1917
1920 League of Nations approves the creation of a British mandate in Palestine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Mandate_of_Palestine
1921 Arab pogroms against Jews break out in response to the Balfour declaration
The Haganah created in response to defend Jewish settlements.
1931 The more agressive Irgun created – breakaway from Haganah. Unlike the defensive Haganah, Irgun authorises retaliatory attacks against Arab pogroms.
1933 Rise of Nazi Germany. Jewish exodus to Israel begins
1939 Faced with increasing Jewish refugees, the British in Palestine limit the intake to 75,000 per year.
Groups like Irgun see this as a betrayal by the British and against the Balfour declaration. Add to this the fact that the Holocaust was raging – and yet the British were limiting intake to 75,000 a year.
We can only guess as to what happened to the Jews who were turned away from Palestine.
1947 The United Nations approves the 1947 UN Parition Plan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1947_UN_Partition_Plan
Most Arab states reject this “two-state” plan.
Nov 1947-Feb 1948 Clashes between Arabs and Jews leave hundreds dead
May 1948 State of Israel declared
1948 Arab-Israeli war breaks out with Iraqi, Lebanese, Syrian, Egyptian and Jordanian troops invading.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab-Israeli_War
apologies to pounce – but i thought i’d add a timeline for folks.
you can clearly see the thread from the 1917 balfour declaration.
the restriction to 75,000 immigrants during the height of the holocaust is particularly shameful – but having said that, the full horror of Treblinka etc wasnt known by the Brits at the time.
if you ask me, they were in a no-win situation – and I cant really fault Irgun for resorting to violence in order to secure the Israeli state – just think of the Nazi gas chambers plus the constant Arab pogroms. Not to mention the Soviet takeover of the East and the associated KGB gulag roundups of “bourgeois capitalists” (i.e. Jews) – speedy creation of a safe homeland for the Jews was utterly essential for them.
it literally was a life or death situation for those folks.
ten o’clock news – ken loach film about irish civil war.
comparisions to iraq being made.
jesus h. christ almighty – there is NO WAY you can compare the black’n’tans with the modern British army.
For f**ks sake , there are loads of southern Irish actually out there in Iraq , fighting with the British. They’ve just joined up to the Irish Guards regiment as professional soldiers.
The Black’N’Tans were anything but professional.
Dont fall for this Irish Indepedence War = Iraq shit.
it is shit. and it belittles the struggle for independence of my country – for it directly compares my grandfather to Islamist fascist fuckers who chop off heads.
disgusting.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/4993956.stm
He (Ken Loach) says: “A story of a struggle for independence is one which occurs and re-occurs. It is always a good time to tell that story. There are always armies of occupation somewhere in the world being resisted by the people they are occupying. The British, unfortunately and illegally, have an army of occupation in Iraq.”
what an ignorant twat.
i suppose the last remnants of the S.S. would be “resisting occupation” according to Mr Loach.
The aims of the 1920s IRA were different Mr Loach – we wanted a democratic, independent state.
The Islamists in Iraq want an Islamofascist state. Big difference mate.
apologies for the rant – but stuff like this is bloody annoying in its utter stupidity.
To Garry POwell,
just to put things straight, I actually live in the UK. I would not have known about BBC’s bias to the extent I know because the diverse media in Israel is quite sufficient to know what is really going on.So, I would not have turned to BBC for news (BBC is actually quite popular for things other than news-programmmes, movies, docu. etc). Funny enough, when I lived in Japan (7 years, 1989-1986) BBC news was our lifeline because the Japanese media is so much worse (yes, it is possible, believe me-I am an expert on Japanese media). Than CNN appeared to substitute, and became the lifeline during the Gulf War.Just to think of the immense influence these two have all over the world makes me feel sick.
Archduke and Pounce
So now we all 3 at least know what happened in the past. Where do we go in the future? At least knowing where we are starting from is a good begining. Maybe Bias BBC should be put in charge of the UN. We could not possibly do a worse job then them, if we were all “hell bent” on world destruction.
Rachel
I don’t think a few British soldiers would have stopped Israel from retaliating agaisnt the SCUDs if they really had wanted to….more to do with American pressure I would say plus the presence of American Patriot batteries such as the one 200 yards from the Liaison Officer’s flat. Noisy sods when THEY were launched!
Rachel,
Just to think of the immense influence these two have all over the world makes me feel sick.
Agreed. We had this debate a few weeks ago on this site. Some felt the BBC was not that influential. They are wrong. Through its extraordinary power and reach, the BBC does a tremendous amount of harm.
Interesting debate on this thread. Sorry I missed it. I had to go to work to pay for the internet time.
Pounce and archduke, thanks for the history lesson. One detail that has been left out though:
There has always been a Jewish presence in Eretz Yisroel/The Holy Land/Palestine since before the Romans and up until the present day, at times in small numbers, but Jews have never abandoned their homeland. Neither will they, ever.
Pounce wrote:
“P.P.S
I was born a Muslim and still have a Muslim name.”
Pounce, are you an ‘apostate’? If so, do your former co-religionists in this country consider that they have the right to kill you and does this worry you?
re Biodegradable
furthermore, although many people disregard truths and facts these days. 1. During the 18 century there were waves of Jewish immigration to israel 2. Overall however, at that time most of the the country was desolated, as documented by Mark Twain–The Innocent Abroad. 3. With the great and energetic work that the new immigrants were doing, the country blossomed (drying swamps, planting, building etc)4. as a result, Arabs from all over flocked to the land, as Churchill observed that between WWI and WWII, “the Arabs have crowded into the country and multiplied”. according to documents (The Palestine Royal Commission, 1937), Arab population rose 75.2 % between the wars. The reason was, the land was offering sea of opportunities. 5. Anyway, the UN, the organisation that, perhaps more than anything else, helped prepetuate the Palestinain refugee problem, decided (only in the Palestinian Arab case), that even people who lived TWO YEARS in the area will be considered refugee, despite the fact that many of land’s Arab were actually economic migrants from Egypt and other surrounding Arab countries.
”Pounce, are you an ‘apostate’?”
I don’t know if I qualify. I was never religious as a young un. We never lived near any Muslims so had to make friends with the Locals.. Add the fact that I was kicked out of the mosque at a very young age for not going and defending my younger sister from the local mullah. (All before the age of 11) and then getting placed into care because my Islamic father couldn’t understand why his children didn’t want anything to do with a certain cult and the only way in which he could express himself was beating up his children. (So Islamic) So classing myself as an Apostate is slightly incorrect as I never deemed myself as a card carrying member. (Mind you I am missing a certain part of my member thanks to the Koran so I technically I suppose I could be clased as an Apostate) However I do understand that in the eyes of the faithful I have a bullseye painted on my back.
“If so, do your former co-religionists in this country consider that they have the right to kill you and does this worry you?”
I don’t fear them. What I do fear is a huge backlash from the public if the appeasing ways of the political elite in the west leads to a huge terrorist outrage. The way Islam works is by character assassination of its detractors. That character assassination has on a number of occasions lead to actual assassinations. There lies censorship of the most insidious type. Al Beeb knowingly or unknowingly has become the mouthpiece for radical Islam in the UK and in doing so they stifle free speech with their petty allegations of racism (They presume that trying to appease people who are taught to kill and hate in their holybook will lead to peace.) Not calling terrorist acts for what they are only polarises the people. I am absolutely terrified of a mob of people smashing down my door after the next terrorist outrage hits the Uk simply because the polictical elite has stifled any attempt at discussing Islam (which could hopefully diffuse any angst) because it deems it racist
Simple fact 3% of the population is Islamic however the percentage of Muslims in the prison population is 10%
Trying to hide that fact by calling anybody who brings it up isn’t racist. It’s suppressing the truth. An as long as Militant Muslims see that they can get away with murder in the Uk they will carry on. Al Beeb in continuing to see the Mullahs new clothes when ever Radical Islam rears its ugly head isn’t doing public relations any good what so ever for the future.
P.S
Please no comments from non Muslim white people about how wrong I am. You haven’t walked a step in my shoes if you wish to prove me wrong. Go to any Muslim area in the Uk and burn the Pakistani flag in public. You may understand for a moment how I felt when four bombs went off in London last year.
Absolutely right Rachel.
Furthermore, until before the Declaration of Indepencence of the State of Israel “Palestinian” was the term used to describe Jews while Arabs were descibed as, well, “Arabs”, thus acknowledging the territory as the Jewish homeland.
Here is a quote, the first sentence of which is often maliciously attributed to Golda Meir:
“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
I think I may already have posted this link before on another thread, but its worth bringing up again now for those who missed it. The BBC is usually keen to show us unclassified historical documents, I wonder why they haven’t covered this:
Nazis ‘shipped arms to Palestinians’
Historical documents in Britain’s National Archives in London show that Nazi Germany attempted to ship arms to Palestinian forces in the 1930s.
…
The records also show that the news of increased Nazi-Arab cooperation panicked the British government, and caused it to cancel a plan in 1938 to bring to Palestine 20,000 German Jewish refugees, half of them children, facing danger from the Nazis.
Documents show that after deciding that the move would upset Arab opinion, Britain decided to abandon the Jewish refugees to their fate.
“His Majesty’s Government asked His Majesty’s Representatives in Cairo, Baghdad and Jeddah whether so far as they could judge, feelings in Egypt, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia against the admission of, say 5,000 Jewish children for adoption… would be so strong as to lead to a refusal to send representatives to the London discussions. All three replies were strongly against the proposal, which was not proceeded with,” a Foreign Office report said.
“If war were to break out, no trouble that the Jews could occasion us, in Palestine or elsewhere, could weigh for a moment against the importance of winning Muslim opinion to our side,” Britain’s Minister for Coordination of Defence, Lord Chatfield, told the British cabinet in 1939, shortly before Britain reversed its decision to partition its mandate, promising instead all of the land to the Palestinian Arabs.
Plus ça change, plus c’est la même
(excuse my French)
Thank you for sharing your views and experiences with us Pounce – very interesting.
Rachel | 19.05.06 – 12:04 am
Good points, but I believe you’re talking about the 19th, not 18th century,
Biodegradable,
Bias by omission of facts. That’s the slippery BBC.
Rachel
Was the murder of Lord Moyne on 6th November 1944 in Cairo by the Stern Gang (Lehi)an act of terrorism or not?
Archduke 18.05.06 – 10:12 pm
Groups like Irgun see this as a betrayal by the British and against the Balfour declaration. Add to this the fact that the Holocaust was raging – and yet the British were limiting intake to 75,000 a year.
I’ll need to do some research on this, but I believe it was more in the region of 15 000 per year. From the 1939 White Paper:
The White Paper also announced that Jewish immigration could no longer be fostered in the face of continued Arab opposition, but declared that, in view of the fact that the economic life of Palestine was adjusted to the reception of large numbers of immigrants, and out of consideration for the plight of Jewish refugees from areas of persecution, the Government planned to admit to Palestine 75,000 persons during the succeeding five years, subject to the criterion of economic absorptive capacity. Finally, the Paper authorized the Government to place restrictions upon the purchase of land by Jews.
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/anglo/angap04.htm
good question,
1. consider that it was Jew-killing season, and that he was responsible for implementing the White Paper:
White Paper:
In order to guarantee the Arab character of the Palestinian State, immigration was to be restricted so that the number of Jews in the country would not exceed one-third of the total population. If economic absorptive capacity permitted, over five years some 75,000 Jews were to be admitted, and at the end of that period “no further Jewish immigration will be permitted unless the Arabs of Palestine are prepared to acquiesce in it.” In addition to the restrictions on immigration, the document also stipulated limitations on land purchase by Jews in most of the country:
2. consequently, considered responsible for the Struma disaster:
Struma was a ship chartered to carry Jewish refugees from Romania to British-controlled Palestine. The ship was sunk by a Soviet submarine on February 24, 1942 with the loss of 768 lives.
3. Considered that he was responsible for the deportation of the immigrant ships-immigrants read those half humans who managed to survive the Nazi beast
—-BTW,
1.do you consider assasinating Bin Laden, Hitler and their ilk, a terrorist act?
2. Quite apart, Do you consider the British military assasination, torture and murder of non-uniformed Jews, a terrorist act?
looking forward to your answer.
Rachel
The Irgun history may be vexing – but I don’t find hypothetical questions about it all that relevant to today’s Middle East politics. Irgun was not blowing up month in month out groups of civilians in cafes, restaurants, buses and bus-stops, its attacks were aimed at the British power. When the Jews in Palestine were given a state under UN actions, they accepted it, did not carry on fighting except when attacked.
People try to use Irgun as a justification for a 30-year campaign of terrorism by the Palestinians. By a group that have been offered reasonable arrangements for their own state but rejected them. By a group that history shows to have preferred to continue for 50 years some form of victim/refugee/beggar status rather than dragging itself up by its own bootstraps. A group that indocrinates its children from toddler stage into supporting terrorism.
When will the BBC show us the sort of stuff that is taught to Palestinian children ? When will it tell us what is being preached every Friday there ? When will it show us the nazi-style parades ?
good questions, i wonder so myself but, for some reasons, don’t hold my breath
Rachel,
Good rebuttal. But somehow I doubt that you’ll get a response from Guiness. He/she is probably a hit-and-run poster.
Anonymous,
Is that you, dumbcisco? If so, good morning!
Bryan
yes, ’twas I. The haloscan thingy keeps dropping my name.
thanks, it was an easy one
good lord – so it was 75,000 over five years during the height of Nazism and the holocaust.
no wonder the Irgun started bombing the British. honestly, if i was Jewish, i would have done the same quite honestly.
YES, ARCHDUKE,
Guinness, where are you????????still eagerly waiting for YOUR reply
Archduke, yes, but paradoxically, according to the source I quoted, only 44 000 of the 75 000 had managed to get to Palestine by autumn 1943:
As the war engulfed Europe, the opportunities for movements of people, whether legal immigrants or not, became less, and in the autumn of 1943 it was found that only some 44,000 of the 75,000 persons provided for in the White Paper had reached Palestine. The British Government, therefore, announced on 10th November that the time limit of the White Paper would not be enforced but that, subject to economic absorptive capacity, an additional 31,000 Jews would be permitted to enter Palestine. Restricted legal immigration, therefore, continued on this basis until the end of 1945.
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/anglo/angap04.htm
Rachel, You’ll probably have to write that one off.
Bryan,
all this is too sad to contemplate. however, with ignorance now more than ever, it is probably a must to keep on telling the truth
Absolutely, because if we remain silent it’s like tacit agreement.
Chaps, for all the head nodding agreement here anyone with an interest and without national/family/religious links to either of the parties appreciates that there’s competing historical narratives that can be reasonably drawn from the facts in support each of the respective ’causes’. Layer of a few myths, a lot of religion and a vast amount of tragedy and you understandably end up with mutual hostility on a grand scale – same as Northern Ireland. Idiots without the personal element who want to ignore the complexities and use the situation as some sort of symbolic badge for their right/left wingness don’t help and should really find a football team to be excessively emotional and unreasonable about.
Getting to a ‘right’ answer involves wholly subjective judgements on the relative moral weighting of various issues i.e. historical ownership of land, economic success, various unpleasantries committed etc etc. The BBC shouldn’t be pilloried for not noticing the ‘obvious’ point that Israel is ‘right’ and ‘supporting’ her cause. What they should get flak for is the toytown way the conflict is presented as some sort of third round FA cup tie between plucky part time underdogs and the premiership outfit (with the US in the Abramovich role as sinister power behind the throne). If they no longer have the presentational skills to instill an understanding as to why both sides so despise each other, they could at least provide more dry background for those who are interested in more than ideology waving.
More pro-Israeli reporting, prominently linked from the front page of BBC News online:
Palestinian crisis
Accounts of Palestinian lives in Gaza and the West Bank
Cry me a river…
“Idiots without the personal element who want to ignore the complexities and use the situation as some sort of symbolic badge for their right/left wingness don’t help and should really find a football team to be excessively emotional and unreasonable about.”
That was a fantastic comment
Live with it, guys. It’s a complex and emotional issue. And contrary to your belief, Cockney, there is right and wrong here, based on purely objective criteria. You know, like the stuff we learned growing up. The stuff BBC hacks have either forgotten or never knew to begin with.
And, contrary to what they’d have us believe, there’s nothing wrong with standing for what’s right.
Sure the situation is complex, intractable. Sure, there can be plenty of reasons to criticise the Israelis.
But I don’t see any moral problem with despising 3 decades of Palestinian terrorism which has led them nowhere, with despising what passes for education inside the palestinian community, with despising the crooks and bandits that rule the Palestinians.
And no difficulty in despising the BBC claptrap that so often presents the Palestinians as victims.
And no difficulty in despising moral equivocation that refuses to call terrorism what it truly is.
Rachel
You didn’t actually answer my question about whether the killing of Lord Moyne was terrorism or not. You merely gave some (mistaken – as it happens) reasons why some Jews might have a grudge against him.
In any case:
1.He had nothing to do with the Struma affair and wasn’te even in the Middle East at the time.
2. He had nothing to do with the 1939 White Paper.
3. Moyne has been in post (as Minister Resident in Cairo) only for about one month when murdered.
But returning to the real issue. Under the mandate Britain had a tough task. Britain was explicitly charged with preparing the way for a Jewish homeland without infringing the rights of the Arab population.
Tough certainly. Impossible, possibly. The result was that 1. was happening more slowly than some Jews liked.
Was that a good enough reason for terrorism against the legally constituted power? Did it make ANY British diplomat in range fair game?