Please use this thread for off-topic, but preferably BBC related, comments. Please keep comments on other threads to the topic at hand. N.B. this is not an invitation for general off-topic comments – our aim is to maintain order and clarity on the topic-specific threads. This post will remain at or near the top of the blog. Please scroll down to find new topic-specific posts.
Open thread – for comments of general Biased BBC interest:
Bookmark the permalink.
I notice that TONY BLAIR has told the BBC he is going o do 606 on Radio 5 tonight………
And of course, the little poodles at the BBC roll over and let Blair tickle thier belly……
The BBC are gutless wimps, slaves to Blair……do his bidding, lick his feet….we know he owns you and rules over you…..lolol….
I laugh in their feeble hypocrytical faces……lolol….
The BBC are just Blairs poodles…….little puppies who don’t even realise that they have been chained up by their master…..Blair……
reith
The most salient period is the period when we first made the complaint. Which was, from memory, in April.
Please confirm that it was in April that the issue was raised.
At that time I kept hearing references to Hamas and its problems over funding being stopped WITHOUT reference to the core reason it was being stopped, namely the commitment to destroy Israel. The flavour was that the West and Israel were being very harsh towards an organisation democratically elected.
Surely that is the period your long search should have concentrated on ? THAT is when we raised the complaint. Why were you not able at that time to come up with the refutation you said was so easy ?
And the complaint was raised, as I recall, in relation to broadcast news. NOT in relation to the website. Can you deny this ?
I certainly don’t go all the time to the BBC website – I listen to Radio 4, and I go if people here post a link to a specific article. I usually scan some newspapers online each day but I do NOT not turn each day to the BBC website.
So far you have produced nil evidence to suggest that the BBC consistently mentioned the commitment to destroy Israel in its broadcast news bulletins.
And the most serious omission was that 12-plus minute long report on the World Service the day of the election results. That will be how much of the world heard the news – with no mention of the elephant in the room.
John Reith,
Still steadfastly avoiding engaging with me, are you?
JR: this is taking on the air of a ‘damn lies & statistics’ trope. The “most salient period” is a wacking long 3-4 days? And most salient for what – your own purposes? How about a more salient period for MY purposes? Like 28 Jan to now?
from the telegraph article comments linked above:
“it seems obvious to me that in all likelihood double agents are at work feeding “credible intelligence” to the police who, after taking the necessary action, are criticized for their behaviour. It is in the best interests of the terrorists to have the police stir up the Muslim community. When the police stop following up on such intelligence for fear of upsetting the do-gooders will be when the terrorists strike. It is a no-win situation.”
no prizes for guessing where i think the double agents are working.
Anyone else hear “Today” ?
“In Australia, an architect has been arrested for [some terrorist offence]….”
Jack Hughes | 19.06.06 – 9:18 am | #
yeah – i did , unfortunately.
seems like the “plumbers” have been upgraded.
Grimer, your comments to John Reith are getting excessively personal. Rein it in, or provide evidence. One or the other.
My personal view: there is plenty to say about BBC soft-pedalling on the subject of Hamas without descending into paranoia.
Dumbcisco
“The most salient period is the period when we first made the complaint. Which was, from memory, in April.”
Changing the goalposts almost every day dumbcisco.
This was you 3 days ago:
“When Hamas won the election the BBC seldom gave the essential context that Hamas wants the elimination of Israel. People at this site referred to many instances of this failure at the time – that is why the whole topic was raised.”
dumbcisco | 16.06.06 – 12:33 pm | #
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/115029229206563809/
Then when it was shown that the BBC DID report this charter pledge ‘when Hamas won the election’ you switched tack saying that by the 25th (the day of the election) you hadn’t seen it reported. In response I gave you details of numerous reports in the six weeks running up to the election. Faced with that evidence you are now switching again and talking about April.
Bryan has already commented to the effect that mentions of the charter are more frequent SINCE the election than before, so that won’t do you any good either.
Whichever way you cut it, the BBC did report this fact many times before, during and since the election.
In my last post I gave you 20 examples of stories over three to four days.
Compare that to print media or other web-based news services such as FT.com or Fox and you will find that the BBC was far and away the most frequent reporter of this fact. It did not suppress it or cover it up as you specifically alleged.
You have a real cheek now saying that BBC News website stories don’t count.
I began by detailing TV and radio coverage – and specifically the main TV news programmes that you denied had EVER mentionned the charter, only to be met with demands that I cite stories you can link to.
Even Bryan – no friend of Hamas or the BBC has had the grace to admit you went well over the top:
“Problem is, we overstated our case a little and got a little too adamant about the alleged inattention the BBC showed to Hamas’ genocidal intentions.”
Bryan | 17.06.06 – 4:14 pm |
reith
The 12-minute World Service piece that reported the election news to the world did NOT contain the elephant in the room info.
The one-and-only interview with a Hamas leader Mahmoud Zahar at that time, running for 3 minutes (Lyse Doucet I believe) did NOT challenge him with the intention to destroy Israel.
Those were GROSS omissions.
Again – when did you promise to find out info on this ? I recall April. When did you commit to your search ?
If you won’t state that date, ifnecessary I will track back through the archives here. My memory remains clear – I kept hearing references to Hamas on the BBC WITHOUT reference to its commitment to destroy Israel. That is – BROADCAST references. Not stuff on the website.
As regards the days around the election you produced a bunch of website references. Several do NOT have the BBC saying explicitly that there is an intention to destroy Israel as a matter of plain fact – the CENTRAL fact. They put the words into the mouths of spokesmen for the US or Israel, which you recognise is not the same. I had already produced a bunch of references covering those dates that OMITTED the elephant in the room.
So there was NOT a consistent stating of the core fact about Hamas.
Natalie,
I’m justing pointing out to John Reith that the BBC website can not be relied upon to provide an ‘accurate historical record’ of any BBC output. Pages are routinely edited to insert/remove information and the ‘last edited’ timestamp is not updated. In fact Andrew makes this point here:
http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/2006/06/follow-up-to-natalies-hadji-girl-post.html
So far, JR’s proof has been to cite a few BBC news bulletins that we are unable to view for ourselves (I’m afraid that I am unwilling accept the word of a BBC employee that the BBC isn’t biased) and an assortment of news items from their website. The website entries are totally worthless as ‘proof’.
I’m not alleging that JR went back and changed each webpage (nor indeed that each webpage has been changed). However, as it impossible for anybody to prove that they haven’t been changed, I am unwilling to accept them as ‘fact’. There are so many instances of proven stealth editing, that the BBC website is now worthless as a historical record. Unless the BBC is willing to open up its IT logs to independent investigation (never going to happen) then I will assume that every webpage I read has been stealth edited at some point. It seems like the safest way to proceed.
Pehaps I didn’t make myself clear, but I’m certainly not decending into paranoia. Reith decided to go off and produce his dossier a few months ago and the best evidence he has is ‘take my word for it, it was mentioned on this news report (but you can’t check that for yourselves)’, plus some easily changeable webpages.
Anyway, if I have offended JR with my ‘personal attacks’, then I appologise.
and here is today’s story on the BBC website – once again NOT mentioning the charter commitment of Hamas to destroy Israel :
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5093452.stm
Dumbcisco
Only someone paranoid would describe reporting a statement by George Bush or Ehud Olmert as ‘putting words into the mouths of spokesmen’. They said these things and the BBC duly reported them. If Bush or Olmert specifically cited the Hamas charter’s pledge to destroy Israel, there is no need to repeat it.
As for your continued misrepresentation of BBC references to ‘recognizing Israel’ – again I direct you to the requirements of the Quartet. They chose NOT to specify changing the Hamas charter as a precondition of dealing with a Hamas controlled government. Instead they came up with the THREE CONDITIONS, the first of which is ‘recognizing Israel’. Since 30 Jan it is the Quartet conditions that are the most salient fact in this story. The charter is still something that should be mentioned from time to time in background, but the Quartet conditions are the main thing to which most stories about funding from EU, UN, USA and Russia should refer.
Even if Hamas did recognize Israel, you probably wouldn’t notice. Arafat recognized Israel in 1988 and even on 25th January this year – almost 18 years later- you were – by your own admission in about the only wholly candid comment you have posted on this issue – still ignorant of this.
Some light relief.
Here is a (D)HYS submission worthy of recommendation (even if it is just a gripe from a non-participating nation).
Have you had to pay exorbitant prices for tickets to World Cup games?
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?threadID=2211&start=0&&&edition=1&ttl=20060619131253
Added: Sunday, 18 June, 2006, 20:55 GMT 21:55 UK
I did indeed. £131.50 for a T.V. licence.
THR, Gogledd Cymru
Recommended by 20 people
john reith
you have to admit the bbc are quick
to point the finger at israel
almost gleefully ie beach blast.but
not so quick on investigating if its
true or not.ie suddeutsche zeitung’s
report.and the beach blast video
was obviously fake even an idiot like
me could see that.so why could’nt the
bbc.
and here are stories from yesterday on Hamas – NOT mentioning the charter commitment to destroy Israel :
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5093266.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5091460.stm
And here is the BBC on Saturday – still spinning away on the Gaza beach deaths :
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/5087878.stm
reith
Don’t be silly. I knew full well that Arafat had recognised Israel long since.
You claim that the Quartet’s demand for recognistion of Israel means we cann effectivly brush over the charter commitment to destroy Israel. I disagree totally. The elephant in the room is a measure of how wide the gulf is – because Hamas has not even accepted the need to recognise Israel.
And in any event, you say that the Quartet’s stipulation requiring Hamas to recognise Israel dates from 30 January. Before 30 January there are plenty of instances of the BBC failing to mention the commitment to destroy Israel – the feature that DEFINES Hamas.
Oh – and I think I asked you to say how many times the BBC reports that hamas is a terrorist organisation.
I assume we get a nil reply on that ?
^^^ From Dumbisco’s link above^^^
But he has not been paid since the start of the year. Western countries and international donors have withheld funds to the Palestinian government over Hamas’s stance of not recognising the state of Israel.
It is a policy designed to put pressure on Hamas. Its impact on the ground here in Gaza means that state employees like Heshad do not get paid. So he too heads for the seaside.
It’s not like the situation with the USA and Taiwan, where the USA doesn’t recognise Taiwan as a country (yet is willing to go to war with China to defend its independence). Hamas refuses to recognise Israel’s right to exist. There is a massive difference between the two. Maybe Wyre Davies is ignorrant? Maybe he is deliberately trying to make Hamas seem less ‘extreme’?
It is impossible to say, but it is entirely consistent with the BBC’s Middle Eastern output.
Spot the difference
BBC report has Taliban with the upper hand
At least 30 people have been killed in an attack by suspected Taleban militants in southern Afghanistan, a member of the Afghan parliament says.
Legislator Dad Mohammed Khan said the incident happened in Helmand province on Sunday.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/5093566.stm
But the Sun gives an account of a major & successful offensive in that area by Coalition forces
CRACK British Paras were last night spearheading a massive offensive in Afghanistan that has the Taliban on the run.
More than 2,000 Brits have joined a coalition force of 11,000 launching a devastating blitz on rebel mountain strongholds.
Around 85 insurgents have been killed so far in Operation Mountain Thrust, the biggest campaign since the hardline Taliban were toppled from power in 2001.
British heavy guns and Apache attack helicopters are blasting fanatical Taliban fighters in the lawless badlands of Helmand province
And Britain’s elite infantry have pushed an extraordinary 75 MILES into areas no security forces have dared enter for 30 years
Brigadier Butler said: “We’re going looking for the Taliban and they have fewer areas left to hide.
“We’ve done far more of the mission now than we expected. We are in areas that have had no security for the last 30 years.” A “carrot and stick” approach has been devised to win the hearts and minds of the Afghans. As soon as combat troops take enemy ground, millions of dollars are pumped in to begin reconstruction projects, such as new roads, bridges and wells.
And local people are said to be welcoming Our Boys with open arms.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2006280108,2.html
Oops, forgot to close the italics after ‘seaside’.
sean, I’m glad you reminded us of the Sued Deutsche piece because its nowhere to be found in the BBC’s press roundup, in fact the only press reports quoted are those that go along with the view that “it was the Jews what done it”.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5079062.stm
reith
May we ask who is doing the research for you on all this ? Bowen’s people ? Some of your replies suggest info on your part that you certainly were not offering before – for instance the Quartet’s 30 January demand for recognition of Israel.
On the Gaza deaths re-spin, I see it was an item on “From Our Own Correspondent” – a programme I did not hear this week.
So it will have been broadcast all round the world – giving the beach deaths story a further wrench, failing to state the cogent grounds the Israelis gave for disputing that they caused the deaths – but giving the info that the anti-Israel “Human Rights Watch” so-called military expert gave. Without mentioning that the “military expert” is not a munitions expert – he was a desk wallah. And of course without referring to the fact that the Palestinians refused to cooperate with the Israeli enquiries.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/5087878.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/default.stm
biodegradable.thanks
hat tip to melanie phillips thou.
its from her latest diary entry.
Dumbcisco on Saturday, early hours
“On 26th Jan…..I did not know the clear distinction with Fatah – that Fatah had finally recognised the principle of a two-state solution.”
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/115029229206563809/
dumbcisco | 17.06.06 – 4:52 am
Haaretz (I know he prefers Israeli sources):
“Only in 1988 did the Palestinian National Council, meeting in Algiers, ratify 181 for the first time and endorse a two-state solution.”
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=396557&contrassID=2&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y
Dumbcisco at 1.31pm today:
“Don’t be silly. I knew full well that Arafat had recognised Israel long since.”
And this is Mr Consistency?
negative anti-israel headline alert:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/world_cup_2006/teams/ghana/5092762.stm
headline: “Apology follows Pantsil gesture”
note the BIGGER factoid buried in the story:
FIFA “had said they had no problem with the gesture.”
also note the quote from the israeli sports minister at the end.
you could argue that the headline should read “Ghana gains Israeli support” or “Israelis delighted by Ghanan gesture”
but of course, as usual, Al-Beeb prefers to push its anti-Israel agenda as per usual.
Bryan
A few days ago you asked a question. At the time I thought it was a fairly nutty rhetorical question. Having read more of your posts I see that it was genuine. I apologise for not taking it seriously sooner.
This was it:
That commitment was not mentioned in the Hamas manifesto for the elections but it will stay.
Dropping it is not conceivable under current conditions.
Would you like to hazard a guess as to what Bowen means by that?
C’mon John Reith, you can do it. Do try. It’s an important key to an understanding of where Bowen and the BBC stand regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Bryan | 16.06.06 – 7:28 pm | #
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/115029229206563809/
At the time Bowen was writing there was a lot of speculation about Hamas being on the brink of changing its spots, amending its charter and producing its very own Gerry Adams and Martin McGuiness. Much of this was based on the fact that Hamas had left any mention of its charter pledge out of its election manifesto. It was argued that if Hamas won the election they would quickly signal their willingness to do deals with the US and Israel. I seem to remember reading a piece like that in the Daily Telegraph myself.
Bowen didn’t believe it. In a think-piece article the BBC’s ME Editor made a judgement about this speculation on the basis of his experience and knowledge. (Making these sorts of judgments is part of his job description).
The words you cite I take to mean Bowen ruling it out. Nothing less. Nothing more. The line about current conditions means, I’d say, something like this: ‘Though one or two Hamas leaders may have flirted with such ideas and given an impression in interviews that they might abandon their charter pledge, they do not constitute a majority of the leadership and do not have the support of the rank and file.’
History has subsequently proved Bowen right (and the Telegraph wrong). Hamas leaders met shortly afterwards and stuck to their hard line and kept their charter commitment. All of which was duly reported by the BBC.
Beeboids would only have found it acceptable if he had gone on to burn it.
reith
What on earth are you taking about ?
Arafat and fatah go way, way back to their terrorism starting in the early 1970s.
By “finally recognised” I meant they were finally induced by the US to recognise Israel – if I recall, at Camp David with Carter.
Oh – and I don’t prefer Israeli sources. I prefer TRUTHFUL sources, reliable sources. I don’t read Haaretz, but I will follow a link (sometimes from herem other times from other blogs) there or to the Jerusalem Post if it appears relevant.
Don’t try to cast me as blindly pro-Israel. I am not Jewish, I want some sort of sensible peace for all the people out there. But I am sick of the BBC refusing to call, terrorism for what it is, and whether you like it or not i regard much BBC reporting as being way too soft on the Palestinians – which actually helps them believe their own victimology propaganda and simply perpetuates the trouble
So again – who is feeding you the stuff on Palestinian history ?
Anonymous at 2.56pm was me
reith
I have requested you a couple of times now to say when you started your search on the Hamas charter issue – was it April, and if so when in April ?
More news suggesting that the Gaza beach bombing might have been staged – and was NOT caused by the Israelis.
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/014432.php
I don’t think we have had much comment from reith on the atrocious behaviour of the BBC over this incident – its willingness to run with the original story, its willingness to propagate the comments of a pro-palestinian “military expert” who is bogus, and its failure to properly correct, with due prominence, the original story.
There is a Newswatch on article that defends the BBC. Although none of the main points are addressed.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/newswatch/ukfs/hi/newsid_5080000/newsid_5088800/5088854.stm
The (D)HYS discussion seems to have slipped off the main page.
I think this really needs watching in the coming months. Will the BBC ever broadcast a retraction as ‘powerful’ as their first piece of propaganda? Or will the story slip quietly away?
Sean, I hadn’t seen the story at Mad Mel’s. I saw it here: http://backspin.typepad.com/backspin/2006/06/german_media_ga.html
There’s now an update with a link to the original article translated into English and also the original German:
http://backspin.typepad.com/backspin/2006/06/german_media_ga_1.html
why is Mel “mad” for opposing islamofascist “ubermenschen” ideology?
in the past we would have called her a patriot.
just goes to show how our terminology has been warped today.
(no offense intended against you personally bioD – just making an observation)
archduke, perhaps I should have put “Mad Mel” in scare quotes.
I have the greatest respect and even affection for Melanie Phillips and have even corresponded briefly with her in private, expressing my support of her.
I agree that she is one of the precious few voices of reason to be heard in the UK.
I hereby promise that I will never, ever, refer to her as mad again.
dumbcisco
“By “finally recognised” I meant they were finally induced by the US to recognise Israel – if I recall, at Camp David with Carter. ”
Anonymous at 2.56pm was me
dumbcisco | 19.06.06 – 2:58 pm |
Yet another admission of your astonishing ignorance of middle east affairs.
Some say the PLO effectively recognized Israel in the 1998 Algiers Declaration. Others claim Algiers only really accepted Israel’s ‘right to exist’ and that true recognition came later in an exchange of letters between Arafat and Rabin in september 1993. Others say that it was only when the PNC met in Gaza in April 1996 that true recognition was effected by the agreement to nullify the objectionable clauses in the Palestinian Covenant. Others still say it was Arafat’s letter of Jan 1998 to Bill Clinton that did it. And others say no, it was the formal nullification forced by Wye River that came after that in 1998.
All the above are arguable positions.
But I know no-one who thinks Arafat recognized Israel at Camp David with Jimmy Carter except you!
No-one is advising me on Middle East history. But I suggest you get someone to advise you.
biodegradable.
mad mel (that made me laugh)
sorry i should of said my hat tip.
JR, I pointed out a few days ago that Although Arafat famously wrote a letter in which he accepted Israel’s right to exist the PLO’s charter, to this day, also still calls for the destruction of the State of Israel.
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/115029229206563809/#288466
So in effect both Hamas and Fatah call for Israel’s destruction in their charters. The only difference is that Fatah speaks with forked tongue while at least Hamas lets it all hang out.
sean, you’re welcome to your hat tip but I linked to the Sued Deutsche story yesterday:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/115007943502042070/#288516
;-Þ
oops….in my last comment the date of Algiers should have been 1988
Before John Reith tells me I linked to an old copy of the PLO charter, here’s the official and current version:
http://www.pna.gov.ps/Government/gov/plo_Charter.asp
Note that Article 15 is still calls for the elimination of Zionism in Palestine.
http://www.netaxs.com/~iris/plochart.htm
Below is the Palestinian National Covenant, the official charter of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). The text is the English version published officially by the PLO, unabridged and unedited.
Note, however, that the PLO’s translation sometimes deviates from the original Arabic so as to be more palatable to Western readers. For example, in Article 15, the Arabic is translated as “the elimination of Zionism,” whereas the correct translation is “the liquidation of the Zionist presence.” “The Zionist presence” is a common Arabic euphemism for the State of Israel, so this clause in fact calls for the destruction of Israel, not just the end of Zionism.
Grimer | 19.06.06 – 3:20 pm
What still concerns me about this beach episode is this.
In your link the surgeon says he has operated on a victim, so a blast really did take place, but it was not IDF materiel that was used.
I still agree with pounce and bryan that the film was fake for the reasons they gave.
So I am forced to the conclusion that 2 things happened.
A genuine blast not caused by the IDF and, coincidentally or not, a faked film.
Do the palis have people waiting around to re-enact incidents?
thats fine biod – i do realise its just a media induced freudian slip.
those make you think how subliminally the media does influence us all.
just think about – if you supported greater integration into a non-democratic European empire fifty years ago, you’ll be put on trial for treason, and probably hung.
nowadays, the folks that just want UK autonomy are labelled as the “lunatic fringe”.
odd isnt it?
“Do the palis have people waiting around to re-enact incidents?”
yes they most certainly do.
google for the “pallywood” video.
See articles 22 and 23 of the PLO charter.
http://www.pna.gov.ps/Government/gov/plo_Charter.asp
PLO=al-Fatah=the “moderate” Abu Abbas:
Pallywood
misleading headline on the front page right now:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/
“Nick Robinson
Shock news! Tony Blair gets his own podcast and reveals all”
no its not. its Eddie Izzard doing the podcast, hosted on the no.10 website.
BioD
I’m with you on this one.
What seems to have happened is that Arafat & Co had a meeting and deemed the objectionable clauses to be nullified, but without going through the proper legal motions of nullifying them – so they’re still there, but ‘deemed null and void’.
Clinton, Netanyahu, Sharon, Mordechai and Sharansky all formally agreed that the clauses had been abrogated. I guess many Israelis too took the view ‘if it’s good enough for Bibi, it’s good enough for me’ but I can well understand why you and others would prefer it all to be signed, sealed and delivered. Clinton made a speech to the Palestinians involved in Gaza (14 Dec) and said:
“I thank you for your rejection—fully, finally and forever—of the passages in the Palestinian Charter calling for the destruction of Israel. ” Since none of them objected, I suppose you could say ‘silence gives consent’.
google for the “pallywood” video.
archduke | Homepage | 19.06.06 – 5:04 pm
I thought the pallywood stuff was pre-arranged and working to a script, though I could be wrong.
What I was getting at was this. Is there a company of actors standing by to provide film when an incident occurs? Are they ready to rush in to a disaster area and run around screaming and wailing on cue?
That’s what it looks like to me.
Of course, if the raw footage with timestamps on it was available that would help to settle the point. Indeed, if the palis wanted to prove the film was not a set-up you think they would be only too willing to release it for expert analysis.
JR, glad we do agree on something else.
If I remember correctly the PLO actually held a much publicised and even televised general assembly at which they went through the motions of voting to remove the offending articles, but as you say, it simply never happened. Neither can I consider those articles ‘null and void’ if they’re still there after so many years. Its not simply a case of the beaurocrats or administrators not having got around to it yet, its a clear case of taqqya, lying and duplicity.
I’m sure you also know that when Arafat returned to the “Palestinian” territories after shaking hands on the White House lawn he continued to make speeches in Arabic calling for “jihad, jihad, jihad, jihad…”
Despite all the agreements signed the “Palestinians” continue to expand and arm their “security forces” instead of honouring their undertakings to clamp down on armed factions.
Children continue to be taught to hate Jews even though both Arafat and Abbas have signed agreements in which they have promised to stop this evil indoctrination. From the translation of the German piece on the gaza beach explosion I linked to earlier:
http://www.zionism-israel.com/log/archives/00000123.html
Huda is, a cousin tells us, one of the class scholars and loves math, ?biology and classics. Their favorite poem is by Mahmud Darwish: Calling Card is a sad poem about a homeless Palestinian and his hate for settlers.
There will never be an end to this madness until the world wakes up to the fact that despite the endless declarations and agreements the Arabs do not want peace if that means a Jewish state in their midst.
The BBC should be assisting the world in understanding this basic fact instead of concealing it from the majoroty of people who draw their conclusions and form their opinions on the basis of misleading headlines.
reith
Whatever the exact time of Fatah’s renunciation of the aim of destroying Israel, it was quite a few years ago. I suggested “if I recall” it was at Carter’s time. You have suggested a spread of dates.
But earlier on this thread you stated categortically that I had said that Fatah still had this aim. You were totally wrong. I had actually said that the aim of destroying Israel was the key factor distinguishing Hamas from Fatah.
Thank you in advance for your apology.
reith
The 6.11 post was by me.
Why haven’t you replied to the question of when you started your search on the Hamas issue – that is – when was it I and I believe others complained about the matter here ? You will know when your search started – could you please tell us when ? This is the third time of asking you this simple question.
And could you please tell us if you are being fed info from the Middle East staff on this issue ? Some of the info you have provided looks far too detailed to be from you yourself.