Michael Medved writes:
yet another example of BBC bias: link
The piece is titled “Hezbollah confirms Israel talks” and contains amongst the rest the following passage: “When Hezbollah captured Israeli soldiers in 2000, it took four years before talks succeeded and the soldiers were swapped for some 400 Palestinian and 35 Lebanese prisoners, our correspondent says.”
They conveniently forget to mention those were DEAD soldiers Hezbollah returned. Is it just an omission, or the internal wish of the BBC to see ALL the Israeli soldiers in this condition?
Another bit of information from this article: “The group has offered to exchange the two Israeli soldiers for Arab prisoners in Israel, but Israel has repeatedly refused.”
Perhaps my insufficient mastery of the English language plays a subtle trick on me, but I feel Israel is a villain in this sentence. Indeed, how dare they refuse to justify the hostages’ kidnapping?
Best regards, Michael Medved
Here is how the BBC reported that earlier swap. Back then, too, the BBC seemed to de-emphasise the fact that the Israeli soldiers concerned were dead. That article says, “Each side sent detainees to an air base in Germany, where identities were checked …” despite the fact that there was only one living Israeli “detainee”, the businessman Elhanan Tannenbaum. One does not usually speak of dead bodies as “detainees.”
UPDATE: The Michael Medved whose email sparked off this post writes, “I was (and am) often mistaken for the US talk show host Michael Medved, so I kind of got used to it :-)”
Perhaps Israel should return 1,000 dead Palestinians and Lebanese.
But of couse if I suggested that I’d be branded as a rabid extreme right wing Zionist.
I’ve noticed how the BBC loves to promote the image that Islamic terrorist groups in the region are magnanimous when it comes to dealing with Israel. To that end I’m a little surprised how the BBC hasn’t aired this story;
Hamas is urging Britain to back its proposal for a ceasefire of up to 10 years as a way of breaking the impasse over its refusal to recognise the state of Israel.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1936182,00.html
But it’s how they mean to go about it which I think the BBC will not report on if and when they air this story;
“We would welcome talks with Tony Blair,” said Ahmad Yousef, senior adviser to the Palestinian prime minister, Ismail Haniyeh, in an interview with the Guardian. “We would like to work with him and work with his government to help end the Israeli occupation. We’re sending a message to the British government – we’re offering a hudna [ceasefire] for 10 years in return for the end of occupation.” Hamas wants European governments to accept its ceasefire plan in lieu of the Islamist group formally recognising Israel.
Do a google search on what a “Hudna” really is.
I remember an Interview fat liberal twat Mark Lawson did on left wing propoganda vehicle ‘The Late Show’. Lawson was trying to get Medved to concede that he was a member of the Christian fundamentalist right (much hated by the BBC). Medved kept on saying ‘How can I be part of that group, I’m Jewish!!’. Lawson didnt get it.
pounce
The BBC, and others, like to describe Fatah and Abbas as moderates, ignoring the truth that they do not recognise Israel’s right to exist either:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52279
Abbas recognition of Israel ‘political calculation’
Fatah member explains PA president’s ultimate goal to destroy Jewish state
Posted: October 4, 2006
JERUSALEM • Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas’ stated recognition of Israel’s right to exist is part of a “political calculation” aimed at ultimately destroying the Jewish state, a terror group leader and member of Abbas’ Fatah party told WND in an interview.
The leader said the Fatah party does not recognize Israel and that any final accord that doesn’t include flooding the Jewish state with millions of Palestinians will not be supported by the Fatah party and will lead to Palestinian civil war.
“The base of our Fatah movement keeps dreaming of Tel Aviv, Haifa, Jaffa and Acco,” said Abu Ahmed, Fatah member and leader of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades in the northern Gaza Strip. “There is no change in our position. Abbas recognizes Israel because of pressure that the Zionists and the Americans are exercising on him. We understand this is part of his obligations and political calculations.”
—-
Abu Ahmed explained Fatah itself has never officially recognized Israel.
“It is the PLO, which is a separate entity, that recognized Israel,and this was a step, a tactical step that had as its goal to bring the resistance and the revolution closer to the lands of Palestine,” Abu Ahmed said.
The PLO was the official governing body of the Palestinians until the PA was formed following the Oslo Accords. Subsequent Israeli-Palestinian agreements were signed officially by the Fatah-led PA but not by Fatah as a party.
Still, Fatah leaders, including Abbas, have made scores of statements recognizing the Jewish state.
But Abu Ahmed commented, “There is an opportunistic class at the head of the Fatah leadership that for personal and political interests says it accepts the existence of Israel. There is no change in our official position. Fatah as a movement never recognized Israel. It is the PLO who did so for the reasons I mentioned.”
Sound familiar? It should do.
“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. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan.”
(PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein, March 31, 1977, interview with the Dutch newspaper Trouw.)
Haden Robbins “fat liberal twat Mark Lawson”
Nice turn of phrase, Haden & an accurate pen picture.
I am sure I am not imagining it but bbc bias/lack of objectivity appears to have got worse in the last few years. Or maybe it is not a question of degree but simply that issues which they were not interested in before, they are now covering with their usual lack of objectivity. In the past (during the Cold War) they used to bend over backwards to put the Soviets in a good light and do the reverse for the West (ok: the USA and GB; they were quite supportive of Dutch hair net wearing soldiers and not in my backyard anti nuke Germans); likewise during the years of industrial decline and lunacy (er postwar Britain until Maggie) they did the same with their portrayal of strikes and industrial unrest. Of course the caravan has moved on and they do not give a toss about their former favourites (ok except with maybe a few exceptions: make your own choice).
Anonymous:
Spot on. How fitting that in Mark Thompson’s recent Mail on Sunday article defending the BBC against allegations of bias, he should admit the BBC’s leftist bias during the previous three decades during which time I remember the BBC defending itself with similar convincing sincerity. He said:
“In the 1990s, for instance, the BBC’s coverage of business often seemed to be negative and redolent of the labour relations which dominated the Seventies and Eighties. Profits were sometimes announced as if a minor crime had just been perpetrated against the public.”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=413190
Pity the Beeb didn’t admit its institutionalised bias at the time and do something to put it right. Now it’s got to the point where its management and staff are quite content to subvert the nation’s democratic function and sway impressionable libel juries with biased reporting.
Will & Haden: you forgot Lawson’s sickening, creepy voice – does he have trouble with his dentures, or is it a genuine impediment (Olympian smugness, perhaps)?
Hmmm, FLT Mark Lawson has a nice ring to it!
It’s not Lawson’s voice per se – to be fair, not everyone can sound like Guiness or Gielgud – but his incredibly irritating total inability to read a script – he manages to mis-stress and mis-emphasize almost every word he utters, and it’s like listening to an instrument that’s permanently out of tune. My favourite was earlier this year when in a programme trailer he announced that he’d be back in “a quarter of an _hour_” (as opposed to – a quarter of a pound? A quarter of an inch?).
It does make me wonder whether he really understands anything about public speaking.
And this when, in a Front Row item a couple of years ago, he and Prof Jean Aicheson took a sneering swipe at George Bush’s apparently poor public speaking ability.
Cheers.
Lawson was trying to get Medved to concede that he was a member of the Christian fundamentalist right…
Is this that same Medved? The movie critic? Michael Medved reads this blog? Duuuuuude.
Er, no. I assumed so but the Mr Medved whose email sparked off this post has said that he is not. He writes, “I was (and am) often mistaken for the US talk show host Michael Medved, so I kind of got used to it :-)”
I will update the post to make this clear.