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.
While I’m here, a little plug for my next post coming up in a few minutes. It’s about the BBC’s readiness to entertain a foolish anti-Israeli conspiracy theory about the Entebbe raid. My view is that, given that we have had thirty-plus years of Palestinian terrorism, I would really need rather a lot of evidence to take seriously the claim that what appeared to be Palestinian terrorism was actually a plot concocted in secret alliance with its apparent victims. Unlike the BBC who report this claim seriously ‘cos some guy said it.
I am equally sceptical and for the same reason of the claims made by some commenters below that Alan Johnston must have engineered his own kidnap because he apparently set out to meet his kidnappers. He was trying to get a story. That’s how Daniel Pearl was kidnapped, too. Palestinian/Islamist terrorists kidnapping people is not so rare an event as to require convoluted explanations.
And I’ve banned “the_camp_commandant” for nastiness on this subject unleavened by any trace of legitimate debate.
Bryan | 04.06.07 – 10:48 am
Which rules do you think that post breaks?
John Reith | 04.06.07 – 11:12 am
These:
*Do not incite people to commit any crime, including incitement of racial hatred.
*Do not post messages that are unlawful, harassing, defamatory, abusive, threatening, harmful, obscene, profane, sexually oriented or racially offensive.
Have you alerted a moderator?.
No. Last time I did, re a particularly foul comment, they left it up for two days and deleted it only once the debate had been closed and taken off the main page. That was just plain sneaky.
But somebody else must have complained because it’s no longer on the site.
Country Life:
Hey I’ve got a great idea. Why don’t we arrange to meet under the clock at Waterloo at a pre-arranged time. Then we could have a full and frank discussion to air our views
You’re on. 5.30 pm Friday. I’ll be carrying a copy of the Evening Standard.
Apologies. I am (briefly) the Anonymous above…
“The BBC will at some point be brought to face the truth that these Palestinian Terrorists, who want to destroy Israel, hate the BBC and the West too – Anonymous ”
I doubt that will be a problem, Anonymous, Beebsters hate the West too, and apparently themselves.
Have you alerted a moderator?.
Why should you have to alert a moderator – HYS is moderated already. If posts can slip through – the moderator is not doing his/her job and should be replaced.
I have alerted a moderator on occasions – one for which I cannot remember the question – but it was probaly an anti american one, where the post was wailing on about some British “massacre” in India in the 1860s. It had nothing to do with the question it was vehmently racist, and the facts were all wrong. The post remained. So what is the point.
why ARE the Russians getting so uppity.
i’m none the wiser despite watching the 24×7 news channels.
anyone got a hint?
I’m sure this will upset one or two here….the other couple 100…REJOICE!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=459710&in_page_id=1770&in_page_id=1770&expand=true#StartComments
BBC headline…
Netherlands sued over Srebrenica
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6721139.stm
Of course, the UN is also getting sued. But since that’s the Beeboids’ favourite organisation it is the Netherlands that gets the mention in big letters while the UN’s role is downplayed.
How are other media outlets reporting this? Well, the Beeb’s approach (single out the Netherlands, not mention the UN in the headline) is not typical…
http://news.google.co.uk/news?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&tab=wn&ncl=1116579515
.
Monthly Jihad Report
May, 2007 Jihad Attacks: 276
Dead Bodies: 2084
Critically Injured: 2156
Via
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/
.
Jon | 05.06.07 – 1:03 am,
A short while ago the Alert a Moderator facility used to enable you to type in your complaint in your own words. Now you can only tick one of the options, obviously making it impossible to submit a proper complaint concerning a comment that breaks more than one rule – like the one you mention.
This makes life easier for the “moderators” but the design should at least make it possible to tick more than one option.
And yes, there are plenty of comments that should never make it onto the site in the first place.
On the six o’clock news last night, John Simpson referred to the Czech Republic, Poland etc as “former allies” of Russia. “Former vassal states” or more neutrally “former satellite states” would perhaps have been more accurate… their status as “allies” was hardly voluntary, and their current alignment with NATO is hardly surprising given this fact, although it seems to be to Mr Simpson
Bush in controversial Czech visit
Why the invitations to President Bush to visit Poland and the Czech Republic should be “controversial” (my quotes) is beyond me – unless you are still smarting over the fact that both are now free countries, recently escaped from 40 years of brutal communist dictatorship, keen to defend their new freedom. Not really as controversial, I would have thought, as Putin’s threat to “aim weapons at Europe” if they try to build a new defensive shield.
But then I suppose to the BBC, Bush is “controversial” just by being Bush?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/world/europe/6721295.stm
#8 IN A SERIES OF ADMISSIONS OF THE BBC’S INSTITUTIONAL BIAS FROM BBC STAFF AND ITS LEFTWING ALLIES:
COPY AND PASTE INTO NEW DOC AND KEEP HANDY FOR REFERENCE IN FUTURE EXCHANGES WITH BBC BIGOTS
This election has shown how deeply the soggy, social-democratic assumptions dear to Labour and its supporters have penetrated the BBC … Television Centre is teeming with journalists who regard Conservatives as oddballs to be pitied and consider political correctness holy writ.
But such bias is the consequence of the BBC’s recruitment policies. It advertises jobs in Leftwing newspapers and disparages competition in favour of pre-ordained consensus …
… The Left-leaning consensus believes that Labour will be in power for a decade to come. It distrusts tough, objective interviewing as a barrier to the renewal of the BBC Charter and the future of the licence fee.
Tim Luckhurst is a former Today reporter/producer
(Daily Mail, 3 May 2005)
Gosh! I post a piece about a BBC page and two minutes later it changes!
No, I don’t actually believe it was because of me. But here is a link to a copy of the original BBC article:
http://www.radical-and-right.org/biased-bbc/BBC%20NEWS%20%20World%20%20Europe%20%20Bush%20in%20controversial%20Czech%20visit.htm
(My previous comment would be seem confusing if you followed the link.)
PS cracking no-holds barred piece on my home page this week (3 June) if I may say so.
Bush in controversial Czech visit
Why the invitations to President Bush to visit Poland and the Czech Republic should be “controversial” (my quotes) is beyond me
I think you’ll find they’re calling it controversial because – as it was described at about 6.40am on Today it is a “right wing Israeli” conference. At least that’s why al beeb regard it as ‘controversial’. (I don’t know how other sources are describing it.) And as we know democracy is supposed to be good unless the “neo con/zionist/right” advocate it – when it becomes sinister and evil.
I was expecting another barrage of 6 day war propaganda this morning but the anti occupation zealots at Today seem to have prematurely ejaculated on the subject and have gone strangely silent.
Funny how the capitalist West is the enemy for Simpson and other BBC hacks. Yet they are happy to guzzle at the public trough provided by capital extorted from the capitalist British public on pain of imprisonment.
Their hypocrisy is astonishing. But I suppose if they succeed in turning Britain into a communist state, then they’ll no longer be leeching off capitalists, and then will no longer be accused of hypocrisy. Problem is, of course, under communism the public trough will empty overnight.
Or maybe the Beeb are miffed with the Poles and Czechs ‘cos they won’t buy the teletubbies?
Climate change
“He gets it” proclaims Matt Frei in his “balanced” report on the Terminator’s greenhouse gas policies in California.
The BBC seems unusually tardy in reporting that a US congressman has been indicted on charges of racketeering. I bet this would have a major story, with headline coverage on the Today programme, if the congressman in question had been a white Republican.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8PI589G0&show_article=1
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSWAT00765020070604?src=060407_14_DOUBLEFEATURE_
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/06/04/jefferson/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,,-6683764,00.html
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=3243047
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/05/washington/05jefferson.html?ref=us
etc. etc.
But nothing as yet from the BBC.
Sorry, that was Justin Webb above.
The series on the Six Day War is fascinating but I think it should be judged as a whole. Is this Jeremy personal Bowen’s view of the period or the BBC’s. Given his position of Middle East editor can the two be separated?
For some reason only Day #3 appears online. Yesterday it was possible to hear (and download) Days #1 and #2 but not today. Any comments will have to rely on fragile memory.
Questions raised by earlier segments may be answered by later ones. For example, will accusations of Israeli mistreatment of prisoners be countered by allegations of Syrian/Egyptian mistreatment of prisoners? At some point will Jeremy Bowen demand proof?
I forgot to add “soliciting bribes and money-laundering” to the above indictment charges.
“He gets it” proclaims Matt Frei in his “balanced” report on the Terminator’s greenhouse gas policies in California.
Abandon ship! | 05.06.07 – 9:16 am
I heard that too, but I think it was Justin Webb. The cult of environmentalism – it’s only the evil heretics who don’t “get it”.
^^^
Funny how they never mention that global warming stopped in 1998, and how they always truncate their graphs to around 2000…
On Newshour yesterday Claire Bolderson presented us with a typical PC introduction on the Six Day War:
It began with a devastating Israeli attack on neighbouring Arab forces.
[Yes, those neighbourly Arabs were just minding their own business when they were devastated.]
Israel said it had no choice. The Arab armies had been massing on its borders and its very existence was under threat.
[That’s right, Claire. Take verifiable, undeniable fact and make it appear true only from the perspective of those wicked Israelis. Also, be careful not to mention the expulsion by Egypt of UN peacekeepers from the Sinai or Nasser’s act of war by closing the Straits of Tiran, thereby preventing ships from reaching Eilat.]
The war may just have been six days long, but we are still living with the consequences.
[The BBC takes the conflict personally, perhaps. Or is this a broader we, indicating that the whole of humanity is bearing the brunt of the actions of those awful Israelis?]
Bolderson then passes the baton to Tim Franks, who runs with it in an unforseen direction:
The Six Day War of 1967 was a stunning victory for Israel and a stunning humiliation for neighbouring Arab countries. The Israeli military struck first and in six shocking days smashed the armies of Egypt, Jordan and Syria.
[I note that the phrase struck first indicates that the sides were already squaring up for battle and is therefore a fair description of what happened.]
The vast majority of Israelis, indeed Jews around the world, thought that Israel was under mortal threat from Arab armies. Most Arabs agreed. Their radio stations and their leaders were telling them that the nineteen-year-old Zionist state was about to be destroyed.
So is the BBC developing a split personality with a misleading, PC introduction giving way to a factual account? I guess I shouldn’t be getting too optimistic. Franks’ report soon deteriorates into PC that matches Bolderson’s introduction:
Many Palestinians here in Nablus say that the heavy presence of the occupation is partly what is driving them now to embrace the more militant, more anti-Israel politics of Hamas
When will we hear from the BBC about the other side coin – the long history of Arab terror against Jews in this land both before and after the establishment of Israel and with or without the “occupation”?
More on the democracy conference in Prague – sounds very interesting with Iranian and North Koreans calling for democracy. It’s being partly sponsored by Natan Sharansky (hence al beeb’s translation into ‘rightwing Israeli conference’).
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-06-04-bush-democracy_N.htm
When will we hear from the BBC about the other side coin – the long history of Arab terror against Jews in this land both before and after the establishment of Israel and with or without the “occupation”?
Bryan | 05.06.07 – 9:48 am
Bryan – this sounds like a rehash of Franks report for the Today programme yesterday. Same mix of fact and fiction – but constructed to give the impression that Israel were the aggressors, deleting the massive Arab provocation. As for giving the long history of Arab aggression – I already got knocked down by Mr Reith for daring to suggest these reports should contain contextual history – too much history apparently. They don’t want history or rather they only want highly selective history to make ‘the illegal occupation’ look like the whole problem and ending it the whole solution. Meanwhile 42% of Israelis think Gaza should be reoccupied to stop the rocket attacks. No-one mentions how dismantling the dreaded settlements in Gaza didn’t miraculously make Pal lives better.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/867304.html
Oscar | 05.06.07 – 10:11 am
I already got knocked down by Mr Reith for daring to suggest these reports should contain contextual history – too much history apparently.
It wasn’t so much the demand for history that irked me – more the current affairs.
You wanted Franks to go on about Oslo, Sderot and the Second Intifada too.
There’ll be plenty of time for that on another anniversary.
Jerusalem Post:
Those who call the Six Day War a disaster or a Pyrrhic victory are grossly mistaken, because they overlook the fact that Israel wasn’t destroyed, historian Michael Oren told The Jerusalem Post on Monday.
In an interview on the eve of the 40th anniversary of the outbreak of war on June 5, 1967, Oren said his research of documents in Arab countries had revealed clearly that the Arabs had planned to destroy Israel.
Although this seems obvious to Israel sympathizers who hold to the traditional story of the Arabs’ responsibility for the outbreak of war, the intervening decades have seen the promulgation of a myth that Israel was not really in danger… What’s behind the myth, Oren argued, is “a more pervasive, ongoing effort to show that Israel bears the bulk, if not the sole responsibility, for decades of conflict in the Arab world, and that the Arabs are the aggrieved party.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1180960609020&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter
Jeremy Bowen:
The myth of the 1967 Middle East war was that the Israeli David slew the Arab Goliath. It is more accurate to say that there were two Goliaths in the Middle East in 1967. The Arabs, taken together, had big armed forces, but they were not ready for combat
The Jewish Goliath had never been in better shape, and knew it, or rather its leaders did. In 1967 Israel was a fortress society in a way that it is no longer.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6709173.stm
The Readers’ Digest Guide to Rare Ailments #94
Bryan’s delusion
Named after a legendary B-BBC conspirator. The sufferer misunderstands ordinary words and works himself up into a permanent, futile rage.
Case study 1:
On Newshour yesterday Claire Bolderson presented us with a typical PC introduction on the Six Day War:
It began with a devastating Israeli attack on neighbouring Arab forces.
[Yes, those neighbourly Arabs were just minding their own business when they were devastated.]
From the Random House Unabridged Dictionary:
dev·as·tate verb
1. to lay waste; render desolate: The invaders devastated the city.
2. to overwhelm.
neighbouring adjective
near or next in place
Therapists are divided over the cure. Some suggest watching all of the BBC’s output, enjoying the immense amount of information, culture and entertainment on offer, weaning the sufferer off a narrow obsession with Israel.
Others suggest the patient stops hanging out with like-minded paranoids and gets a life.
Biased BBC: Words. Mean. What. I. Say.
Anonanon | 05.06.07 – 10:43 am
So was Jeremy Bowen right, or was he not about the David & Goliath stuff?
US and British intelligence reports support the Bowen thesis.
Six weeks earlier, the British cabinet’s Joint Intelligence Committee had concluded that an Arab victory was “inconceivable.”
Around the same time, the US Joint Chiefs of Staff said Israel would be “militarily unchallengeable by any combination of Arab states at least during the next five years”.
(Follow your own link and scroll down).
You wanted Franks to go on about Oslo, Sderot and the Second Intifada too.
There’ll be plenty of time for that on another anniversary.
John Reith | 05.06.07 – 10:43 am | #
No – I didn’t – you misunderstood me. I was writing about the Today programme as a whole which deluged us with items for the 40th anniversary, but not one of them gave the contextual history I mentioned. And this was hardly esoteric stuff – I mean Gaza pullout and it’s aftermath – isn’t that as relevant as it gets? I didn’t expect Franks to get everything into his short introductory report – I just expected it to be balanced. Which it wasn’t remotely.
I just hd to share this – I clicked on Gordon_Broon_Eats_Hez_Bawgies’ link –
http://www.thoseshirts.com/imaoun.html – and was astounded to see a T-shirt there with the simple phrase “We should invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity”. (I’d vaguely heard this before but hadn’t realised anyone had actualy said it – I’d always assumed it to be a pardody). Anyway, astounded and keen to know more, I googled said phrase and one of the top links was to a Guardian article on the world’s first right-wing festival (http://film.guardian.co.uk/features/featurepages/0,4120,1311287,00.htm) and guess who it mentions? One” well-turned-out Englishman, Jonathan Boyd Hunt – there to promote his research proving the very real threat that the BBC-Guardian axis poses to the interests of the United States”!
Sorry if you found that story rather dull, but I just liked the circular nature of it.
the BBC gets goatsed on live tv (youtube video)
watch out for the first alternative logo…
Can we look forward to similar on the 40th anniversary of the Yom Kippur war?
Somehow I doubt it.
Though if we do it will be some equivalent of blatant aggression by Israel as their gonads assaulted their opponents knee that was merely in their house unannounced doing the plumbing.
What’s notable about the current coverage of the Six Day War is how it demonstrates the extent to which history has already been rewritten.
I was 18 years old 40 years ago and clearly remember how, even without the internet, people had a clearer idea of what was actually going on.
It was clear that the Arabs were the aggressors and people were aware of the almost daily attacks on Jews in kibbutzim.
It was clear Israel was David (and still is).
It was clear the Arabs got what they deserved and the world by and large cheered for victorious little Israel.
What a difference 40 years of bias and disinformation can make.
BaggieJ:
Can we look forward to similar on the 40th anniversary of the Yom Kippur war?
Somehow I doubt it.
You are an answer to a prevaricator’s dreams – a man who’s already filling in his viewing schedule for the year 2013. Well done!
One more thought: Will we be watching WBA in the Premiership highlights by then?
Biased BBC: No such thing as an unreasonable demand.
Thom Boston | 05.06.07 – 11:28 am
I just liked the circular nature of it.
Yes. It’s a small world and world of kooks is smaller still.
It reminds me of the bird which flew in ever-decreasing circles until one day it flew up its own arse.
Maybe that’s where JBH went all those months when he went quiet on us.
I guess you’ll have sourced your quotation by now to Ann Coulter.
She got fired by National Review for saying that.
A surprisingly PC gesture.
Some time later she recalled: “I got fired for saying something that a few months later became government policy.”
Sadly, the quote isn’t in the repertoire of the Ann Coulter doll that you can order here:
http://www.talkingpresidents.com/products-af-coulter.shtml
So far as I know there is not yet a JBH action figure (all smear – no investigation).
But sources close to our intrepid conspiracy monger have their doll moments –
For a couple of years in her youth, Christine Hamilton was a carnival turn at a September funfair. She spent hours in bed wearing a baby-doll nightie as the prize in Tip the Lady out of Bed. If a ball hit the target, Christine fell to the ground, bruised but uncomplaining — she adored the funfair.
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/article435022.ece
One could go on exploring the endless circularity of it all, starting – and finishing – here:
http://www.guardianlies.com/
From today’s “BBC daily email”:
ON THIS DAY
* 1967: Israel launches attack on Egypt *
Israeli forces launch a pre-emptive strike on Egypt prompting Arab allies to get involved in a ground and air battle.
Full story:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/june/5/newsid_2654000/2654251.stm
Indeed, those “Arab allies” needed quite some prompting.
The same page linked to says this:
The Arab states had been preparing to go to war against Israel with Egypt, Jordan and Syria being aided by Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Algeria.
On 27 May the President of Egypt, Abdel Nasser, declared: “Our basic objective will be the destruction of Israel. The Arab people want to fight.
See the timeline in the little box:
31 May 1967
Jordan moves tanks towards Israel
No mention of the armies of Syria and Jordan already massed on Israel’s borders!
The BBC never allows the facts to get in the way of re-stating the facts in a different way!
Biodegradababble:
I was 18 years old 40 years ago and clearly remember how, even without the internet, people had a clearer idea of what was actually going on.
It was clear that the Arabs were the aggressors etc etc
What a difference 40 years of bias and disinformation can make.
Clarity is obviously your gift.
Equally clear, BioD, that Palestinian families tend to put their daughters up for sexual abuse at 13?
Anyhow, continuing to read this umpteenth sob story of the “Palestinian” people be sure not to miss this little gem:
Samira, Mustapha’s 13-year-old sister-in-law, suffers from a chronic medical condition affecting her mobility.
If I read that correctly Mustapha’s brother is married to a 13 year old girl.
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/1195663365858000750/#350795
Biased BBC: Clear as….
As I just said, It was clear the Arabs got what they deserved and the world by and large cheered for victorious little Israel.
1967: Memories of the Arab-Israeli war
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/witness/june/10/newsid_2976000/2976542.stm
For the first couple of days there was shelling from the United Nations building [captured by the Jordanians on the first day of the war] which landed around our house.
…
There was a wonderful atmosphere of reunion because many people of the old city, the Palestinians, hadn’t seen each other since 1948 and there was some really great scenes of reunion.
ill*unt
“Will we be watching WBA in the Premiership highlights by then?” etc etc etc
Further to the request to meet you at Waterloo station I invite you to the Hawthorns for a face-to-face full and frank exchange of views you sad pathetic childish prick.
I don’t think you have the balls, but the offer definitely stands.
Otherwise sod off and don’t ever come back, as eternity of never hearing from you again would be about ten billion years too soon!
The introduction to the “in depth” feature on the Six Day War:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/guides/457000/457035/html/default.stm
In 1956, Israel invaded the Gaza Strip and Egypt’s Sinai peninsula. Israel was forced to leave the Sinai the following year and a United Nations Emergency Force (Unef) was deployed.
If you didn’t know better you’d be forgiven for thinking that this was simply an early example of Israel’s aggression and expansionist ambitions.
You need to look a little further at the events of 1956 to find out that something was happening at the Suez canal.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/july/26/newsid_2701000/2701603.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5199392.stm
BaggieJonathan,
Forget the illc*nt. He only seeks attention.
It’s laughable how he’s dug up, yet again, an old topic that’s already been dealt with. He has not shown me where in the article he’s talking about it states that the 13 year old girl is not married to the interviewee’s brother.
While I’ve provided plenty of evidence that child brides are common amongst Muslims the best illc*nt can do is fish around and come up with a report of an Israeli pedophile in Canada.
The more we ignore him the more desperate he becomes. As I’ve said before, he’s like an adolescent in a room full of grown-ups giggling and interrupting the conversation at every opportunity – he’s pathetic really.
Biodegradababble:
He has not shown me where in the article he’s talking about it states that the 13 year old girl is not married to the interviewee’s brother.
Indeed it doesn’t.
And only a true seeker after truth would make that fine distinction.
In future, all news stories about young family members should make absolutely clear whether or not they’re being sexually exploited by their adult in-laws.*
(* Applies only to Muslims)
.
Bowen On the Six Day Warpath
Arab Documents Debunk 6DW Myths
More 6DW Myths Debunked
John Reith,
Jeremy Bowen uses British and US intelligence assessments to discredit Israel’s fears about the country’s ability to prevail in an imminent war.
So these would be the same Agencies (inc. the JIC) that were so sure that Saddam had WMD then?
Biodegradable | 05.06.07 – 1:35 pm
Good links.
So was Jeremy Bowen right, or was he not about the David & Goliath stuff?
US and British intelligence reports support the Bowen thesis.
Six weeks earlier, the British cabinet’s Joint Intelligence Committee had concluded that an Arab victory was “inconceivable.”
Around the same time, the US Joint Chiefs of Staff said Israel would be “militarily unchallengeable by any combination of Arab states at least during the next five years”.
John Reith | 05.06.07 – 10:50 am
Bowen promotes what Oren calls “the promulgation of a myth that Israel was not really in danger”. The leaders of countries with a combined population of 100 million had vowed to destroy a country with a population of 3 million. Goliath was overconfident; David was fighting fit and beat him up.
A note on western military intelligence assessments – on 26 May 1967 US Secretary of Defence McNamara told Israel’s Foreign Minister Eban that Israeli fears over an imminent Egyptian air assault were unfounded. Oren has drawn on Egyptian sources to prove that there was indeed a plan (“The Dawn”) to attack Israel on 27 May. The attack was abandoned because, luckily, President Johnson had a nagging doubt that the US intelligence reports may not have been accurate. He got on the hotline to Soviet Premier Kosygin who in turn made Nasser aware of US concerns. The Egyptians realised Operation Dawn was no longer secret and it was abandoned.
http://www.commonwealthclub.org/archive/02/02-06oren-speech.html
Battersea | 05.06.07 – 2:00 pm
to discredit Israel’s fears about the country’s ability to prevail
No, not to ‘discredit’.
Bowen displays due empathy about those fears.
Read what he actually says:
Israeli civilians, especially in the crisis that led to war, were left to their own fears, which for many people were considerable.
The Jewish state was only 19 years old and the youngest survivors of the Holocaust were barely in their 20s. Egyptian leader Gamal Abdul Nasser’s radio station Voice of the Arabs fed their anxieties by broadcasting bloodcurdling threats.
Its chief announcer, Ahmed Said, had the best known voice in the Arab world in the 1960s after Nasser himself and the legendary diva, Umm Kulthum.
Said was famous for lines like this: “We have nothing for Israel except war – comprehensive war… marching against its gangs, destroying and putting an end to the whole Zionist existence… every one of the 100 million Arabs has been living for the past 19 years on one hope – to live to die on the day that Israel is liquidated.”
No wonder many Israelis and their friends and relations abroad were scared stiff.
Reports of what Said was saying, and even the broken Hebrew of broadcasts beamed directly into Israel from Cairo, convinced many Israeli civilians that if they were facing enemies that were prepared to annihilate them, then they needed to fight, and fight hard.
John Reith,
Jeremy Bowen’s piece isn’t to display empathy with Israel’s fears. He describes the Israeli public’s fears in an attempt to show that the Israeli army exploited these fears to launch the war.
Read the rest of Bowen’s piece and you will see.
And I am grateful to for implicitly conceding that Bowen’s reliance on the Joint Intelligence Committee (among others) is misplaced.