A couple of ‘compare and contrasts’. The discrepancies between this BBC report on Friday prayers at the Temple Mount/al-Haram al Sharif – and this Jeruslalem Post report.
BBC – Jerusalem prayers pass peacefully
Islamic prayers at Jerusalem’s holiest site ended peacefully on Friday, a week after clashes between Palestinians and Israeli police.
About 3,000 police were deployed around the Old City of East Jerusalem, and men under 50 were barred from entering the Temple Mount, or Haram al-Sharif.
Jerusalem Post – Muslims clash with police after Salah speech in east J’lem
Dozens of masked Muslim youths and children clashed with security forces and reporters in east Jerusalem’s Wadi Joz on Friday afternoon, throwing rocks, blocking streets and burning garbage bins.
Police dispersed the rioters with stun grenades, tear gas and water hoses.
At least one of the rioters was wounded and three were arrested, Israel Radio reported.
The protesters had been listening to a sermon delivered by Islamic Movement head Sheikh Raed Salah at a massive protest rally north of the Old City.
During the sermon, Salah urged supporters to start a third intifada in order to “save al-Aksa Mosque, free Jerusalem and end the occupation.”
He went on to say that Israel’s history was tainted with blood. “They want to build their temple at a time when our blood is on their clothes, on their doorsteps, in their food and in their drinks. Our blood has passed from one ‘General Terrorist’ to another ‘General Terrorist,'” exclaimed the Islamic Movement chief.
It’s true that the trouble was outside the Old City, so the BBC report is not untrue. It’s just our old friend suppressio veri in action. (hat-tip – Biodegradeable, who also notes the contrast between this story and this one)
He’s little known over here, but David Hicks is an Australian held in Guantanamo after being captured in Afghanistan. The Rottweiler Puppy fisks a somewhat anodyne BBC report which again features supressio veri.
Via commenter pounce, another ‘compare and contrast’.
The BBC and how the US is insensitive towards the needs of children.
Schools shun book over one word
A children’s author has said she is “horrified” after her book was banned from some US schools and libraries. Susan Patron’s award-winning The Higher Power of Lucky has run into trouble because it contains the word “scrotum”.
Patron, a librarian herself, condemned the idea of stopping families choosing reading material for themselves. “I was shocked and horrified to read that some school librarians, teachers, and media specialists are choosing not to include the 2007 Newbery Medal winner in their collections,” she wrote in Publishers Weekly.
Those people were afraid of parental objections or were uncomfortable with the word themselves, she said. “If I were a parent of a middle-grade child, I would want to make decisions about my child’s reading myself. “I’d be appalled that my school librarian had decided to take on the role of censor and deny my child access to a major award-winning book.”http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/enter…ent/ 6375501.stm
The BBC and how the UK is sensitive towards the needs of children.
School bans pigs stories
A West Yorkshire head teacher has banned books containing stories about pigs from the classroom in case they offend Muslim children.
Mrs Harris said in a statement: “Recently I have been aware of an occasion where young Muslim children in class were read stories about pigs. “We try to be sensitive to the fact that for Muslims talk of pigs is offensive.”
This seems to be a standard technique, albeit ‘unwitting and unconscious’. Some stories are ipso facto considered by the BBC to be ‘controversial’ – so opponents are wheeled out to give their views. The Today equivalent would be the ‘many people would argue that …’ or ‘but campaigners are saying …’. Another, ‘non-controversial’ story will beget no negative quotes.
An example – Two stories on immigration and asylum from 2003.
One – the Tory proposal that all immigrants to the UK should be screened for infectious diseases.
Two – an Industrial Society proposal that it should be made easier for asylum seekers to find work in the UK, as they are “skilled, willing and keen to work”.
Both of these stories could be seen as controversial. Pro-refugee and asylum groups would consider the first a disgraceful proposal. Organisations like Migrationwatch or journalists like Anthony Browne would take issue with the second.
But on the BBC, one story is considered so controversial that the reaction to it is played more prominently than the proposal itself. On Radio 4 the story is trailed – “the Conservatives have been defending their proposals”. On the BBC News web page there are four different reactions – all critical. I’m particularly impressed with the way Evan Harris remarks are inserted into a description of the report – as below.
Immigrants would have to pay for the tests and asylum seekers would be detained until it was clear the tests had been met, it said.
” This is an unnecessary, extremist, unethical and unworkable policy ” – Evan Harris, Liberal Democrat health spokesman
The document said more than 50% of TB in the UK now occurs in people born abroad, the majority of whom arrived in Britain within the last 10 years.
The other proposal ? Obviously entirely uncontroversial – no critical voices are present. And no mention of the fact that the report’s author, one Gill Sargeant, is a Labour councillor (in Barnet), nor that the Industrial Society, now rebranded as the Workplace Foundation, is headed up by one Will Hutton, Guardian journalist and New Labour guru.
And finally : 18 Doughty Street have a video interview with Robin Aitken, author of Can We Trust The BBC?.
Those are definately lens caps on the Binoculars… Big deal. I use Binoculars 7 days a week and I can assure you that I frequently scan the horizion and inadvertenly leave the caps on . No problem just take then off !! The BBC used the picture to embarass the defense minister. Thats how the BBC works.
Andy:
“If the UN does not prevail – then who does? ”
Hmmm,as I understood it the UN charter was supposed to prevent people like Saddam waging aggresive war with her neighbours,reinforce UN mandates (like the right for Isreal to exist without fear) and to stop things like genocide taking place in Rwanda….
No instead to carries out massive fruad,ignores it own resolutions,and continues to be the gravey train.
And as usual it appears that the “warmongers” the UK US Australia in particular are the ones that eventually clean up the mess.
And that is the sad truth,when the US/UK acts in its own interest (see my last posts regarding Iraq’s WMD programmes), and deals with countries like Iraq then these are the “trouble makers”.
But it fine for the likes of Clooney,Moore,Yorke et al to send US and UK troops to which ever trendy cause they are currently “concerned” with,then hey that’s OK…..
I guess when the US becomes isolationist in ’08, and the world has to face Iran without Uncle Sam and Blighty,then they will be all crying in the free trade coffees’.
Pounce-
As a crtique of what the mass media (BCC,MTV,CNN,CBS et al)are, here is an interesting section from Benjamin R Barbers excellent “Jihad V McWorld”
“To create the cultural values neccessary is McWorld’s first operating imperative.Thirty years ago Disney’s little sales creatures crooned to theam park visitors “It’s a small world afer all”.The small world is being dumbed down by Bevis and Butthead and heavy metal music.Cop Killer rap is hissing to restive teenage audiences around the globe that to “off” (Kill) policemaen is necassary,to dispise women is cool,and to grow up unneccssary-even PC,yet recording executives assure nobody really means any of it.To be sure MTV is a complex medium with a varity of messages:subliminally,it offers blips savouring freedom and disdaining authority (thus appeal to “resistance” movements),it catalyzes consumption (thus attraction to advertisers),it reinforces identity (“We are the world”),even as it underscores differeces (Dis-United Colors Benetton),flirts with violence and sometimes makes sport of sex (women are “ho’s an’ bitches” and men are fuck machines). It celebrates youth,encouraging forever-infantile oblivousness that defines life in the default mode as passive consumerism.”
He adds
“More liminally,it engages in shallow but pervasive political campaigns that are vaguely liberial and empowering though often countercultural and sometimes even scandalizing (as with black rap and hip-hop),but finally as vapid as the vacuously tendentious lyrics of the most scandleous songs.”Rock the Vote” it shouts,wrapping Madonna in a flag and urging the youth to register.Live Aid,Free Your Mind,Choose or Lose-rock musicians flexing underdeveloped poltical muscles in the name of causes so safe and universial that the campaigns can do little harm,but scarcely good either”
He adds with no hint of irony:
“Multiculturalism has in some places conjured anarchy.Self detirmination has at times amounted to other-extermination”
Although he was discribing MTV directly,you could be forgiven that it was Al Beeb (whom indirectly it was aimed at).
This is why I believe the BBC is one of the most damaging, unaccountable,distructive organizations in the public domain today.It promotes a bland “multicutral” neo-liberial homogenized world view that reinforces the forces of Jihad (violent nationalism backlashes against the MSM world view,the internet,so readily promoted,allows these forces,Islamic or otherwise a voice and a window) at the same time discourging real democracy (undermine Government,of what ever “political” party,then you undermine the very body that can control you.)then offering nothing but “Auntie knows best” and a new digital box….
And you pay for that?
To put it simply-Al Quieda recruiters don’t even have to point out the UK’s involvement in Iraq-they simply turn on the TV, pop on Punk’d,Cribs,Eastenders et al and say-“This is why we are conducting Jihad against the godless infidel”
Once upon a time the “Left” was against big buisness,now it is the only buisness.
Andy Tedd (exBBC) | 23.02.07 – 3:13 pm
Top Gear is, apart from its rampant anti-Americanism is pretty much apolitical. They occationaly rant against ‘safety cameras’ but then who doesn’t?
You must be kidding about ‘Life on Mars’. This is a direct attempt to show how much nicer the New labour PC world is in comparison to the Nasty Cop years of the 70’s. The character you cite is crude, boorish, sexist and racist. Hardly sympathetic.
As to ‘The Gathering Storm’ , well true, but then Winston is fighting the rising Nazi tide during that period. Would have been more balanced if it had been set during the ‘Iron Curtain’ years.
Do you see how this works? A character like Winston Churcill can only be drawn sympathetically when he fights the right not the left.
But the NAZIS were bloody “left”….
Nazi stands for National Socialist German Workers’ party
They were SOCIALISTS…Volkswagon, etc…..
Thas the scary thing, the BBC does NOT recogonise past history, and is going down a well traveled road, that we know leads to the deaths of 10s of millions of people…..
Socialism has failed everywhere…in Europe it Killed 60 Million…..in Russia under Stalin, the same…….
This is why the BBC is so wrong…it has become, what it pretends to hate…….it has gone full circle, and the BBC are the Neo Nazis now…..
Anonymous | 24.02.07 – 4:15 pm |
But the NAZIS were bloody “left”….
Nazi stands for National Socialist German Workers’ party
They were SOCIALISTS…Volkswagon, etc…..
Yes, yes, but not in common parlance. They certainly have more in common with communists than conservatives. But, and it’s a big but, that’s not how they are commonly perceived. That’s what counts. Reality has little value in La-la land.
‘Muslim protesters gathered for a peaceful protest on 6 February 2007 at the Dung gate. Goading them, the orthodox Jewish man on the left demonstrates his belly dancing skills.‘
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/picture_gallery/07/middle_east_jerusalem0s_temple_mount_or_haram_al_sharif_/html/6.stm
Utter biased rubbish. This is a clear dig by the BBC. There is no evidence that the Muslims are being ‘goaded’ at all.
milesinfront,
True. It was discussed further up on this thread – before this comment of mine:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/117204901741369183/#331024
But the NAZIS were bloody “left”….
Left and Right are meaningless terms used carelessly for convenience or insult. The closest we can come to defining them is walks like a duck; talks like a duck then it must be a duck.
In what sense are Islamists left or right? What have trade unionists, NuLabor, Greenpeace, Maoists and third worlders really in common?
Left-wing politics
Right-wing politics
For an alternative take the World’s Smallest Political Quiz
I don’t want to describe the political categories it presents yet 😉 That would skew the test taking. Let’s just say that WSPQ presents a much more realistic late 20th Century approach than the Left/Right dichotomy. Does it include Islamism/Totalitarianism: to my mind the real issue of the 21st Century?
Take the quiz and discuss. You have 20 minutes!
Thanks Bryan. Screengrab just in case…
http://img167.imageshack.us/img167/6439/bbcgo4.png
Sorry, better image here…
http://img170.imageshack.us/img170/6251/bbcke1.png
Here’s another quiz that looks at Left/Right as obsolete. The Political Compass It seems to factor in Islamism/Totalitarianism better too.
Intriguingly I fall in practically the same Central place as previously. Deegee you are a WIMP! :o(
Fat Contractor
Gene Hunt is clearly a sympathetic characters – why dont you like him?
deegee raises some good points – many of the issues which people here consider to be evidence of ‘left-wing’ bias are not drawn along the old-fashioned left-right line. Climate change is one of those.
But of course its much easier and more convenient to lump everything together under a simple banner, no matter its accuracy.
Climate change, or to be exact “man-made global warming”, has become a left-right issue. It appeals to leftists such as the BBC because it means more state intervention, more money and power for people employed at the unnecessary end of the public sector, more moralizing and finger-pointing, and more blame being cast on the industrialized Western world.
For Beeboids, what could be more agreeable?
‘occupied’ is the term used in resolutions made by the UN Security Council . I should have been clearer about that, I didn’t mean the General Assembly.
David Cameron doesn’t see it that way, fortunately.
Errr…..
National Socalisim isn’t a “left wing” as it believes in the concept of “nationalism”-the opposite to the “world revolution” as trotted out by the Comitern.
However I suspect that for the man in the street in Germany,especially in the 20’s, there was little difference between the Red Front and the SA..both were violent groups of thugs.
BTW There is even a “left” and “right” in the NSDAP……something to do with “Volkish” principles(?) and the role of the private sector.Ernst Rohme (head of the SA until killed by the SS in the Night of the Long Knives) was on the “socalist/command economy” wing while men like Georing or Speer were on the “right” with their more “lassier-faire” “free-market” approach.
Then there is the whole Nazi politics on race.
There were certainly not the monolithic group that the “left” and the Nazi’s themesleves were trying to make us believe.
milesinfront:
Thanks Bryan. Screengrab just in case
Good thinking. But the BBC probably wont fiddle with it. To its hacks, it doesn’t represent bias, but the truth.
‘occupied’ is the term used in resolutions made by the UN Security Council . I should have been clearer about that, I didn’t mean the General Assembly.
Andy Tedd (exBBC) | 25.02.07 – 9:18 am
Please quote an entire sentence or phrase, or better still give a link.
To say for example that “Israel occupied East Jerusalem… ” would be correct. To describe the *disputed territories* as such is not in line with International Law for the reasons already given.
I can find no such reference here:
http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/peace%20process/guide%20to%20the%20peace%20process/selected%20reference%20documents
Except in the famous Resolution 242 which says:
Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;
Obviously “occupied” cannot be substituted for “disputed” in that example, and neither does the term “occupied” here signify an illegal act.
Quoting the UN as if it were the divinely-appointed final authority on anything? (i know to some it wishfully is)
they can’t even (re)define a word like terrorism – not that it even needs to be (re)defined, other than for political reasons and convenience. which is itself discrediting, IMHO.
and plus, as they say, i thought the UN was often little more than the US’ lap dog…? or is that appellation also merely a matter of convenience?
i’m not totally sure if such is the case, but if the UN uses terms in violation or contradiction of international law, what is one to think then?
Andy Tedd (exBBC):
foxgoose/bio/et al
If the UN does not prevail – then who does?
Andy Tedd (exBBC) | 24.02.07 – 12:18 am |
this is an excellent question
sadly, though, the entire planet is, i believe, in peril if that is to be the main raison d’etre of that corrupt, bloated and financial-resources gobbling monster.
one could also ask, at great offense to some, i know, if the US does not prevail – then who does?
after all, and probably also at great offense to some, there is, i believe, as much chance of us “all getting along” if the US stops ‘meddling’ as there would be if the UN stopped ‘meddling’, and nation-states were allowed to interact with each other. impossible, you say? perhaps…but remember, the UN has never stopped a single war, and apparently ignores corruption and slaughter as well, if to acknowledge it might mean actually having to DO something
Gene Hunt is clearly a sympathetic characters – why dont you like him?
deegee raises some good points – many of the issues which people here consider to be evidence of ‘left-wing’ bias are not drawn along the old-fashioned left-right line. Climate change is one of those.
But of course its much easier and more convenient to lump everything together under a simple banner, no matter its accuracy.
Andy Tedd (exBBC) | 25.02.07 – 8:53 am | #
I must say that I don’t find that Life On Mars is trying to make a big political comment, but while Gene Hunt is portrayed as a bit of a likeable rogue, he is almost always wrong in the programme, rather like Chief Inspector Japp vs. Hercule Poirot. There is a definite message that modern is right and old-fashioned is wrong. I don’t see a political agenda here, but to deny that Hunt comes across at best as faintly ridiculous is absurd.
Heron I think we will have to agree to differ on this, it seems clear to me that the programme suggests there is something to be said for what Hunt does and how he does it.
It just wouldnt be as drammatically interesting if the flow of ideas was just one way, it is a staple of the ‘fish out of water’ that the fish must learn from those around him.
Don’t disagree with that at all – but the comparison with Japp is valid. Hunt is always wrong. Who’s the hero? Mr Progressive Compassionate 21st Century, or the roughhouse old school rogue from the ’70s?
biodegradeable – there is clearly difficulty in trying to get a form of words that is acceptable.
The Guide does refer to ‘disputed territories’:
“The Israeli government’s preferred phrase to describe the West Bank and Gaza Strip is “disputed territories” and it is reasonable to use this when it is clear that we are referring to or explaining its position.”
Picking up your earlier point (which I think was trying to insinuate that the use of Palestinians implies a country called Palestine) here is what the guide says on ‘Palestine’:
“There is no independent state of Palestine today, although the stated goal of the peace process is to establish a state of Palestine alongside a state of Israel.
So be careful with the use of the word “Palestine” as its meaning can depend on the context.
For example, it can refer to historical Palestine or it can refer to a future state of Palestine living side by side with Israel as envisaged in the Roadmap. ”
The Guide has been very carefully constructed and is as balanced as it was possible to make it.
Having put it on the website it can then be used to assess the tone of individual reports against the ‘institutional’ position.
to return briefly to matters of a porcine nature, could someone please tell me when consideration was given to banning anything for fear of offending jews (in which matter islam merely follows judaism) and if not, why not? and why now, for muslims’ sake?
moreover, i have read that considering muslims as a monolithic whole is islamophobic (not my choice of word), yet monolithicism (my word) seems just fine where mulims-as-victims is concerned
or can this ban be considered islamophobic? 😉
amimissingsomething: Because Jews do not have to be appeased – they are not a threat to anyone in this country. There have been large Jewish communities in here for over 100 years – even the most orthodox (e.g. in Gateshead). They have adapted at living here – they have never tried to dictate to the “host” community what they should do and how they do it. There was a Jewish lad in the same year as me when I was at school – he was excused morning assembly as it involved singing Christian hymns – His parents were quite happy with the rest of the education he was given – in fact he mixed in with he rest of us. There was no “lefty liberal” suggesting that the school should abolish assemblies or stop carol services or the like in case he was offended. Common sense availed.
Occupied territories? Never forget that to both the PLO and Hamas all of Israel is occupied territories. Trust me, they don’t forget.
Fatah logo: crossed rifles over all of Israel.
Andy Tedd (exBBC):
biodegradeable – there is clearly difficulty in trying to get a form of words that is acceptable.
The BBC has no difficulty in using a form of words that is acceptable to the “Palestinians” and their supporters but biased against Israel.
The Guide does refer to ‘disputed territories’:
“The Israeli government’s preferred phrase to describe the West Bank and Gaza Strip is “disputed territories” and it is reasonable to use this when it is clear that we are referring to or explaining its position.”
ie: when referring to it as “the Israeli government’s preferred phrase”.
As in, “Palestinans witnesses say blah blah blah, but an Israeli spokesman denies this…”
Picking up your earlier point (which I think was trying to insinuate that the use of Palestinians implies a country called Palestine) here is what the guide says on ‘Palestine’:
“There is no independent state of Palestine today, although the stated goal of the peace process is to establish a state of Palestine alongside a state of Israel.
So be careful with the use of the word “Palestine” as its meaning can depend on the context.
I see no such care being taken. The territories under the control of the “Palestinian Authority” should be described as such, not ever as “Palestine”. The “president” is NOT the “Palestinian president”; he is “president of the Palestinian Authority”.
There is no such thing as “Palestinian land” because there has never been a state called “Palestine”. In fact before taking control of Gaza it was under Egyptian control, and the West bank was controlled by Jordan… neither of which ever suggested establishing a “Palestinian state” there when they could have done so.
All of the above misnomers, and more, are common currency in BBC reporting.
For example, it can refer to historical Palestine or it can refer to a future state of Palestine living side by side with Israel as envisaged in the Roadmap. “
But in effect it refers more often than not to an de facto state, “occupied” by Israel, with president, parliament, and on occasion even “soldiers” rather than “militants”, or simply gunmen.
The Guide has been very carefully constructed and is as balanced as it was possible to make it.
Having put it on the website it can then be used to assess the tone of individual reports against the ‘institutional’ position.
Andy Tedd (exBBC) | 25.02.07 – 8:06 pm
I’m still waiting for you to give me a concrete example of the UN Security Council’s use of the term “Occupied territories”.
Rather, I’m not waiting because I’m tired of your feeble attempts to justify the BBC’s efforts to perpetuate the meme.
Biodegradable,
I also did a double-take at Andy Tedd’s statement:
biodegradeable – there is clearly difficulty in trying to get a form of words that is acceptable.
Like the difficulty the UN has in defining terrorism. Anyone who hasn’t been perverted by constant, subtle and not-so-subtle pro-terror propaganda – such as that flowing from the BBC – knows very well what terrorism means. The UN can’t/wont define it because a large percentage of that useless organisation is itself made up of terrorist states and states that harbour terrorists. (Same difference.)
Biodegradable:
I’m still waiting for you to give me a concrete example of the UN Security Council’s use of the term “Occupied territories”.
Will this do?
REPORT OF THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE ISRAELI PRACTICES AFFECTING THE HUMAN RIGHTS OF THE PALESTINIAN PEOPLE AND OTHER ARABS OF THE OCCUPIED TERRITORIES
I am very curious who are these other Arabs who are not Palestinians?
IMHO Whether or not the Security Council uses the term Occupied Territories is irrelevant so long as the United Nations official agencies use the term. For example, Get the latest news on Occupied Palestinian territory. This includes Gaza.
I suspect the difficulty in finding Security Council documents owes more to American veto than any doubts in UNSC about the term.
deegee
I don’t think the Americans veto use of the phrase ‘occupied territories’. In fact both the US State Department and the CIA actually use it:
Israel and the occupied territories
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2004/41723.htm
Occupied territories
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2000/nea/882.htm
Occupied Territories
https://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/speeches/2004/tenet_testimony
According to the CIA the current legal status of Gaza is:
West Bank and Gaza Strip are Israeli-occupied with current status subject to the Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement – permanent status to be determined through further negotiation; Israel removed settlers and military personnel from the Gaza Strip in August 2005
https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/gz.html
On the poverty issue – The CIA factbook also gives the proportion of Gaza residents living below the poverty line as 81% –
there is clearly difficulty in trying to get a form of words that is acceptable.
Here’s another form of words I find unacceptable:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6396471.stm
About 400,00 Jewish settlers and 2.5 million Palestinians live in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, land occupied by Israel during the 1967 war.
Why not “Israeli settlers”?
If you’re going to call them “Jewish” why not call the others “Muslims”?
Andy Tedd – what do the guidlines say about the use of “Jewish” versus “Israeli”? I think you’ll find this is a(nother) clear breach.
And yet again we’re not told that east Jerusalem was liberated from invading Jordanian forces in 1967… or do the BBC want us to believe that Jerusalem, “Royal David’s City”, Israel’s eternal capital, was realy “Palestinian land”?
Andy Tedd – what do the guidlines say about the use of “Jewish” versus “Israeli”? I think you’ll find this is a(nother) clear breach
http://news.bbc.co.uk/newswatch/ukfs/hi/newsid_6040000/newsid_6044000/6044090.stm#jewish
JEWISH
Be careful over whether you mean “Israeli” or “Jewish”: the latter might imply that the story is about race or religion, rather than the actions of the state or its citizens.
When writing about ‘settlers’ there will be times when it is appropriate to refer to them as ‘Jewish’ and times when it is appropriate to refer to them as ‘Israeli’. You will find both terms are well used on the BBC website.
The status of East Jerusalem according to the UN Security Council is that it is ‘occupied’ in resolution 446. Although Israel disputes this.
I agree that there could be more information on the period 1917-1967 on the BBC website, although if I remember correctly the Jordanian annexation of East Jerusalem was recognised by Britain, which might make it difficult to refer to the ‘liberation’ of East Jerusalem in 67.
Just my opinion, that last bit.
Andy Tedd (exBBC):
When writing about ‘settlers’ there will be times when it is appropriate to refer to them as ‘Jewish’ and times when it is appropriate to refer to them as ‘Israeli’. You will find both terms are well used on the BBC website.
Exactly when is it appropriate to refer to them as Jewish and was the use I quote in today’s report appropriate?
If you believe it was please explain why?
I find the term “Jewish settlers” is used more than “Israeli settlers” in breach of the BBC’s own guidlines.
http://search.bbc.co.uk/cgi-bin/search/results.pl?q=%22Israeli+settlers%22&x=68&y=12&scope=all&edition=i&tab=all&recipe=all
Page 1 of 24 pages for “Israeli settlers”
http://search.bbc.co.uk/cgi-bin/search/results.pl?scope=all&edition=i&q=%22Jewish+settlers%22&go.x=0&go.y=0&go=go
Page 1 of 80 pages for “Jewish settlers”
Biodegradable | 26.02.07 – 11:58 am
do the BBC want us to believe that Jerusalem, “Royal David’s City”, Israel’s eternal capital, was realy “Palestinian land”?
Royal David’s City was Bethlehem, not Jerusalem.
Andy Tedd (exBBC):
When writing about ‘settlers’ there will be times when it is appropriate to refer to them as ‘Jewish’ and times when it is appropriate to refer to them as ‘Israeli’.
Is it ever appropriate to refer to “Palestinian militants” as “Islamist terrorists”?
I thought not…
Well spotted JR, just checking to make sure you were still on nit-picking duty.
BioD
Some (not all) settlers are religiously motivated.
Some (not all) settlers hold passports of countries other than Israel (e.g. US or Australian).
Some (not all) settlers repudiate the State of Israel (Settlers from the illegal 851 settlement outpost near Itamar attacked soldiers guarding them with the demand that they remove the Israeli flag from the flagpole. “The flag offends us,” said the rioters, “On this hill there is no State of Israel—there is a state of Halacha.”
http://www.southwestern.edu/~kotarskj/peace.html)
Some (not all) settlers are in violation not just of international law, but also of the laws of Israel.
So, sometimes it correct to term them ‘Jewish’.
The piece I quoted above has undergone a complete overhaul removing all reference to numbers of settlers of any kind.
The headline about a curfew in Nablus has been replaced with One shot dead in West Bank raid
It also mentions in passing:
Elsewhere in the West Bank, an Israeli settler was stabbed to death by Palestinian militants on Sunday, police said.
The body of the man, named as Erez Livnon, 42, was found by local Palestinian residents in an area between the settlement where he lived and the village of Beit Omar.
“He was stabbed repeatedly by a knife all over his body. Based on a preliminary investigation there is no doubt he was the victim of a Palestinian terrorist attack,” police spokesman Micky Rosenfeld told AFP news agency.
Murdered Jews don’t even warrant a report all to themselves now!
So, sometimes it correct to term them ‘Jewish’.
John Reith | 26.02.07 – 3:36 pm
So must we assume that the BBC assiduously checks all of those conditions you outline above before deciding whether the settlers are Jewish or Israeli?
Pull the other one mate, its got bells on!
About 400,00 Jewish settlers and 2.5 million Palestinians live in the West Bank
John Reith:
BioD
Some (not all) settlers are religiously motivated.
Some (not all) settlers hold passports of countries other than Israel (e.g. US or Australian).
Some (not all) settlers repudiate the State of Israel (Settlers from the illegal 851 settlement outpost near Itamar attacked soldiers guarding them with the demand that they remove the Israeli flag from the flagpole. “The flag offends us,” said the rioters, “On this hill there is no State of Israel—there is a state of Halacha.”
http://www.southwestern.edu/~kot…skj/peace.html)
Some (not all) settlers are in violation not just of international law, but also of the laws of Israel.
So how many of those 400,00 (sic) Jewish settlers are Israeli?
search for “Jewish settlers site:news.bbc.co.uk” at news.google.com:
Nablus curfew enters second day
BBC News, UK – 5 hours ago
About 400,00 Jewish settlers and 2.5 million Palestinians live in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, land occupied by Israel during the 1967 war. …
Link goes to http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6396471.stm
Original not available in google cache and because the headline is changed NewsSniffer doesn’t track it either… obviously the BBC are getting better at burying their stealth edits instead of getting better at impartially reporting the news!
http://thumbsnap.com/v/7CpMOvbr.jpg
Where does the BBC get its figure for settlers in the West Bank from?
http://news.google.com/news?client=safari&rls=en-gb&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&um=1&tab=wn&q=%222.5+million+Palestinians%22&filter=0
Israeli settler was killed by militants-police
Reuters AlertNet, UK – 40 minutes ago
… West Bank in August, when gunmen shot a soldier at a military checkpoint. About 260,00 Jewish settlers and 2.5 million Palestinians live in the West Bank.
Nablus curfew enters second day
BBC News, UK – 5 hours ago
About 400,00 Jewish settlers and 2.5 million Palestinians live in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, land occupied by Israel during the 1967 war. …
Israeli police find body
The West Australian, Australia – 17 hours ago
… when a soldier was shot dead at a military checkpoint. Around 268379 Jewish settlers and 2.5 million Palestinians live in the West Bank.
Israeli settler was killed by militants-police
Reuters AlertNet, UK – 8 hours ago
Police said he had died in an accident. About 260,00 Jewish settlers and 2.5 million Palestinians live in the West Bank.
Apartheid By Any Other Name
Alarab online, UK – Feb 3, 2007
Today, 260000 settlers live in the West Bank along with 2.5 million Palestinians. Exact figures are difficult to obtain, but it would appear that the more …
Apartheid By Any Other Name
CounterPunch, CA – Feb 2, 2007
Today, 260000 settlers live in the West Bank along with 2.5 million Palestinians. Exact figures are difficult to obtain, but it would appear that the more …
Of Walls and Bantustans: Apartheid by Any Other Name
Palestine Chronicle, WA – Feb 2, 2007
Today, 260000 settlers live in the West Bank along with 2.5 million Palestinians. Exact figures are difficult to obtain, but it would appear that the more …
Apartheid By Any Other Name
Foreign Policy In Focus – Feb 1, 2007
Today, 260000 settlers live in the West Bank along with 2.5 million Palestinians. Exact figures are difficult to obtain, but it would appear that the more …
BioD
It looks like you are the one who’s nit-picking on this Jewish settler/Israeli settler question. The Israeli media seem to prefer ‘Jewish settlers’.
A Google search for exact phrase ‘Jewish settlers’ in domain: http://www.haaretz.com yields 598 results for ‘Jewish settlers’ and only 147 for ‘Israeli settlers’. The same search in domain http://www.jpost.com (the Jerusalem Post) yields 118 ‘Jewish settlers’ and only 64 ‘Israeli settlers’.
http://www.google.co.uk/search?as_q=&hl=en&num=10&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=Jewish+settlers&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.haaretz.com%2F&as_rights=&safe=images
http://www.google.co.uk/search?as_q=&hl=en&num=10&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=Israeli+settlers&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=www.haaretz.com&as_rights=&safe=images
http://www.google.co.uk/search?as_q=&hl=en&num=10&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=Jewish+settlers&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=www.jpost.com&as_rights=&safe=images
http://www.google.co.uk/search?as_q=&hl=en&num=10&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=Israeli+settlers&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=www.jpost.com&as_rights=&safe=images
Biodegradable | 26.02.07 – 4:17 pm
The 400,000 figure includes settlers in East Jerusalem. The 260,000 figure excludes Jerusalem.
Bio – are you suggesting the BBC is trying to hide or ignore the fact that Hamas is an Islamist movement?
“Rather than agree to “commit itself” to existing Israeli-Palestinian agreements, Hamas insisted it would merely “respect” them.
The international community has demanded much more: the Islamist movement must recognise Israel, renounce violence and formally accept existing peace agreements. ”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6346551.stm
“The fighting is between members of the Islamist Hamas movement, which controls the Palestinian government, and members of the more secular Fatah faction, whose leader is the Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas. ”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6324677.stm
etc