You know that BBC story that described Ahmadinejad as a “trenchant critic” of Israel? It now says… “outspoken critic.”
Hat tip: Biodegradable (and the ever-wonderful News Sniffer.)
Biodegradable provided a list of others described as outspoken critics by the BBC. And Byran pointed out that, “they were picking so delicately over the phrase that they didn’t notice it should be an outspoken critic.”
What’s your favourite word?
Bio,
Palestine joined FIFA, by far the most important international body, in 1998 and has been playing in World Cups ever since as an independent state. Surely that’s good enough for you?
Seriously, whilst history is all very interesting and open to interpretation blah blah blah, I’d be wanting the British media to focus their reporting on realistic and practical means by which the participants and international community might actually resolve this hugely tiresome and costly issue.
A solution relying on the Arabs accepting Israel’s ancient sovereignty over Gaza, Judea, and Samaria might sound great in the pub, but realistically is a load of old bollocks to the same extent as the ‘right of return’ and not worth serious analysis by any reputable media organisation.
Why is there no balancing coverage of the BBC’s treatment of Palestinians on this site?
Ben | 13.06.07 – 1:36 pm
OK, try this on for size:
BBC:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6748811.stm
Civilians have been caught in the crossfire
Haaretz:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/870548.html
In Gaza City, a civilian was killed Wednesday when some 1,000 Palestinians marched through the streets chanting “stop the killing” – only to draw gunfire from Hamas militants at a nearby police station seized from Fatah a day earlier.
Several hundred tribal leaders, women, children and Islamic Jihad militants turned out for the protest, which was initiated by Egyptian mediators.
Witnesses said Hamas gunmen shot at the protesters as they approached the house of the Bakr family – Fatah loyalists – trapping the demonstrators.
Protester Bilal Qurashali said he saw a man shot in the head. “We are unable to get out.” The place is closed, he said.
Health officials said another 14 protesters were wounded by bullets and brought to the hospital in civilian cars because ambulances couldn’t navigate the heavy fire.
Separately, Hamas gunmen opened fire from a high-rise building at about 1,000 protesters in Khan Yunis, wounding one and breaking up the demonstration.
The Israeli press gives us more information on what’s happening to “Palestinians” than the fair and balanced BBC.
Why?
“The Israeli press gives us more information on what’s happening to “Palestinians” than the fair and balanced BBC.
Why?”
Because the minutae of what happens in Palestine has serious implications for Israelis and Israeli policy, whether it be in anticipating attacks if the Palistinians decide to heal their rifts with a good old suicide bombing outing, or deciding precisely what degree of oppression to impose that day. Us Brits and the world in general can probably live without the detail as long as we get the main bits to roll our eyes to.
I suspect Haaretz has less detailed coverage of Scottish matters than the BBC for the same reason.
Palestine joined FIFA, by far the most important international body, in 1998 and has been playing in World Cups ever since as an independent state. Surely that’s good enough for you?
No
Seriously, whilst history is all very interesting and open to interpretation blah blah blah, I’d be wanting the British media to focus their reporting on realistic and practical means by which the participants and international community might actually resolve this hugely tiresome and costly issue.
It’s not up to the media to resolve anything, their job is to report objectively.
Part of the problem as I see it is that the media (BBC, Independent, Guardian etc.) do believe that it is within their brief to change the world, and they have the arrogance to believe they know how to. They believe their interpretation of history is correct and that’s what they push down our throats daily. Apart froim being factually wrong it promotes and rewards terrorism as a way to achieve Arab aims.
A solution relying on the Arabs accepting Israel’s ancient sovereignty over Gaza, Judea, and Samaria might sound great in the pub, but realistically is a load of old bollocks to the same extent as the ‘right of return’ and not worth serious analysis by any reputable media organisation.
Cockney | 13.06.07 – 3:12 pm
It’s as much a load of old bollocks as the “Palestinians” claim to Jerusalem as their capital. The fact is the Arabs have proved time and again that they are not prepared to accept any Jewish presence anywhere in what they call “Palestine”. There has never been a Palestinian state, ever, much less with Jerusalem as its capital, while Jerusalem has forever been regarded as Judaism’s most sacred site and the eternal capital of Eretz Yisroel.
They could have had a Palestinian state at any time since 1948 but have refused consistently in the belief that one day they will suceed in driving the Jews into the sea.
If there is ever a Palestinian state I’d be all in favour of their right to return – to “Palestine” – not to Israel, otherwise what is the purpose of this hypothetical state?
Cockney | 13.06.07 – 3:24 pm
The BBC saying that “Palestinans are caught in the crossfire” when the truth is they are being deliberately targeted is on par with calling Ahmadinajihad an “outspoken critic”.
Because the minutae of what happens in Palestine has serious implications for Israelis and Israeli policy… deciding precisely what degree of oppression to impose that day.
It’s clear where you’re coming from. “Palestinians” murdering each other and you ignore it and talk about Israeli “oppression”.
John Reith | 13.06.07 – 12:09 pm
you place quotation marks around the word Arab – presumably for the same reason – as you go on to apply them too to the notion of progress – about which many of us are sceptical.
Actually no. I placed ‘Arab’ in quotes because I wanted to distinguish between pan-Arabism (a single Arab state incorporating all the present Arab states) and nationalism by Arabs e.g. Syrian, Libyan or Egyptian nationalism. Hamas arguably supports neither. It’s goal is the Ummah. The Caliphate is for Muslims not just Arabs.
I put ‘progress’ in quotes to distinguish Hamas looking back to the 6th Century as perfection and Fatah looking at the 20th Century and adopting, at least superficially, some of its norms. The PLO it should be remembered includes groups that are arguably socialist and has members who are at least nominally Christian.
if the Palistinians decide to heal their rifts with a good old suicide bombing outing…
Cockney | 13.06.07 – 3:24 pm
No need to heal rifts, killing Jews is their common aim.
Not the BBC news:
Two women would-be suicide bombers caught on way to attack
There are already 4 Palestinian states: Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and Egypt.
Israel has withdrawn trrops and settlements from Gaza, why not give it back to Egypt?
Israel can withdraw largely from the Golan and the West Bank whilst retaining a small proportion of the land which it has settled on its border (the price of defeat in war for the Arabs).
Israel does not want to be an occupier it wants peace.
Israel can then defend its own borders with any barrier it sees fit and I think it will not want any cross border work force.
Of course all the arab nations would have to recognise Israel and stop its citizens in its returned territories attacking Israel, it would be its responsibility.
If the Arab nations then want to voluntarily give up its land to a Palestinian independant state that will be up to them.
I can’t find this suggestion on the BBC anywhere, but I have posted as much on Al Jazeera.
BioD
Palestine
When was it founded and by whom?
April 25th 1920. By The Allied Supreme Council meeting at San Remo.
(Here I have assumed the question relates to a modern political entity called Palestine as opposed to Roman, Byzantine or Ottoman provinces etc. that were officially or unofficially known as Palestine or had ‘Palestine’ in their name.)
What were its borders?
From the River Jordan to the Mediterranean Sea:
Broadly equivalent to today’s Israel + West Bank and Gaza (not including the Golan Heights and with the northern border with Lebanon a few miles to the South of its present position in one part.)
What was its capital?
Jerusalem
What were its major cities?
Jerusalem, Jaffa, Haifa, Nablus Ramallah, Beersheeba, Tel Aviv, Gaza.
What constituted the basis of its economy?
Agriculture, in particular cereals, plantation, banana and citrus.
What was its form of government?
Military Administration until 1 July 1920, thereafter a
Civilian Mandatory administration under a British High Commissioner reporting to the Secretary of State for the Colonies. The administration was effective from July 1 1920 but its legal staus was provisional pending ratification of the Mandate by the League of Nations, which took place in 1923.
Can you name at least one Palestinian leader before Arafat?
Ahmad Shuqueiri
Was Palestine ever recognized by a country whose existence, at that time or now, leaves no room for interpretation?
Yes: France.
What was the language of the country of Palestine?
Arabic, Hebrew and English were the official languages.
What was the prevalent religion of the country of Palestine?
Islam (c77%) • with substantial Christian (10%) and Jewish (11%) minorities.
What was the name of its currency?
The Palestine Pound (divided into 1000 mils)
Choose any date in history and tell what was the approximate exchange rate of the Palestinian monetary unit against the US dollar, German mark, GB pound, Japanese yen, or Chinese Yuan on that date.
On November 5th 1927 the Palestine Pound was worth exactly one pound Sterling.
And, finally, since there is no such country today, what caused its demise and when did it occur?
It was due to be divided into two new states under the United Nations Partition Plan of 1947 • but neighbouring Arab states rejected the plan and invaded in 1948 hoping to strangle the infant state of Israel at birth. They lost. The territory was divided up between Israel, Jordan and Egypt under UN supervision in 1949.
John Reith:
So much research. So little understanding.
What were its borders?
From the River Jordan to the Mediterranean Sea:
Broadly equivalent to today’s Israel + West Bank and Gaza (not including the Golan Heights and with the northern border with Lebanon a few miles to the South of its present position in one part.)
The Palestine Mandate included all of the country we now know as the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan See picture of the Mandate in 1922. http://thumbsnap.com/v/0p1GzuIa.png
Note the absence of Lebanon.
Look at this wonderful flag. Really shows wonderful Arabic design.
http://thumbsnap.com/v/2dehqU6U.png
This is a vital point to note because a) Territory under British control east of the Jordan River was formed in September 1922 into a separate administration known as Transjordan.
b) By your argument all Jordanians would be Palestinians.
c) The Arabs living in the area now Israel refused to accept the term Palestinian for themselves.
It is really stretching the definition of country to accept that when European Powers draw lines on a map and award one of them control that constitutes an independent recognised country. That is by most definitions the description of a colony.
All you have shown, and no one has ever denied it, is that Britain took control of the area and ran it from 1920 to 1948
John Reith:
And, finally, since there is no such country today, what caused its demise and when did it occur?
It was due to be divided into two new states under the United Nations Partition Plan of 1947 • but neighbouring Arab states rejected the plan and invaded in 1948 hoping to strangle the infant state of Israel at birth. They lost. The territory was divided up between Israel, Jordan and Egypt under UN supervision in 1949.
On September 30, 1947, Britain decided to terminate the British mandate of Palestine, later setting the withdrawal date of May 15, 1948. Subsequently, a majority of the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine recommended the creation of independent Arab and Jewish states, with Jerusalem to be placed under international administration, and on November 29, 1947 the UN General Assembly voted 33 to 13 in favor of the 1947 UN Partition Plan.
Britain returned the Mandate in May 1948. The invasion of the Arabs came six months later.
As Israeli leaders now routinely refer to them as Palestinians I would have thought that in practical terms there is no need for quotes around the word Palestinians.
Personally the more I think about it I like Cockney’s FIFA definition.
The Palestinians are a political construct with no long standing historical claim to the land BUT almost 60 years after they lost their first chance to make a state there is an identifiable group who are commonly known as Palestinians. As there is little to no chance their Arab brothers will allow them to integrate; there is still money to made by keeping the status and various N.G.O’s would lose all their perks by settling the problem it is fair to expect they will remain as Palestinians for the foreseeable future.
… but neighbouring Arab states rejected the plan and invaded in 1948 hoping to strangle the infant state of Israel at birth. They lost. The territory was divided up between Israel, Jordan and Egypt under UN supervision in 1949.
John Reith | 13.06.07 – 6:11 pm
Well at least you got that part right. Makes all the rest somewhat superfluous.
My favourite BBC word is “Dies”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6749663.stm
“Lebanese MP dies in Beirut blast”
Shouldn’t it be murdered or assassinated or killed?
yeah “dies” is a good one.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6748811.stm
“Militants from the Palestinian faction Hamas are pushing back rivals Fatah in the Gaza Strip after several days of heavy fighting in which 60 people died.”
“deegee | 13.06.07 – 7:14 pm ”
on a recent Sky News documentary on the 6 day way, Saeb Erekat stated in no uncertain terms, that when the 6 day war started , on that day he “became Palestinian”.
he was born in East Jerusalem, then part of Jordan. so that makes him Jordanian.
then because the Israelis beat the crap out of the Arab armies , he suddenly became a “Palestinian”.
how convienient!
“Jews win a war, lets make up a nationality an whinge and whine about our asses being kicked”
as convienient as that other “palestinian” Arafat -who was born in Egyptian Cairo.
if we take this logic to its extreme , then the 3 million expelled Sudenten Germans must be all of the Bohemian nationality, and the likes of Dresden is just a big Bohemian refugee camp.
archduke,
Erekat stole that line:
Palestinians are the newest of all the peoples on the face of the Earth, and began to exist in a single day by a kind of supernatural phenomenon that is unique in the whole history of mankind, as it is witnessed by Walid Shoebat, a former PLO terrorist that acknowledged the lie he was fighting for and the truth he was fighting against:
“Why is it that on June 4th 1967 I was a Jordanian and overnight I became a Palestinian?” “We did not particularly mind Jordanian rule. The teaching of the destruction of Israel was a definite part of the curriculum, but we considered ourselves Jordanian until the Jews returned to Jerusalem. Then all of the sudden we were Palestinians – they removed the star from the Jordanian flag and all at once we had a Palestinian flag”. “When I finally realized the lies and myths I was taught, it is my duty as a righteous person to speak out”.
Everything you need to know about “The True Identity of the So-called Palestinians” is here:
http://www.imninalu.net/myths-pals.htm
Jeremy Bowen on BBC tonight when questioned about the ‘civil war’ in Gaza
” At the moment it has all the hallmarks of a civil war- If it continues for another couple of months, that’s what it will become.”
Or words to that effect.
?????????????????
If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck ????????????????
BTW there were Palestinians pre 1948 but they were mostly Jewish residents of the British Mandated territory.Anyone referred to as a Palestinian at that time was almost invariably a Jew.
c.f. the Joint Palestinian Appeal (a Jewish charity)whose name was changed post 1948 to the Joint Israel Appeal
Edna | 13.06.07 – 11:52 pm
Quite right. Israel Radio was previously known as the Palestine Broadcasting Service.
deegee | 13.06.07 – 7:14 pm
You write pompously:
So much research, so little understanding
Wrong on all counts. Your own history appears very rusty.
First:
The Palestine Mandate included all of the country we now know as the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan….. by your argument all Jordanians would be Palestinians.
Wrong. The political entity of Palestine established in 1920 did not include Transjordan, which was governed by the Hashemite, Abdullah, as a separate protectorate under British auspices.
So when the first High Commissioner, Herbert Samuel, took up his position on 1 July 1920, he did not administerthe territory East of the Jordan. However, when the French deposed Abdullah’s brother Feisal from the throne of Syria some weeks later and Abdullah threatened war against Britain’s allies the French, Samuel travelled across the Jordan and announced on his own authority that the area East of the Jordan would be absorbed into the Mandate, though he specifically promised it would not be merged with Palestine.
A complication then arose as the Foreign Secretary, Lord Curzon, said Samuel had acted ultra vires and over-ruled him. Abdullah then travelled to meet Winston Churchill.
Churchill promised Abdullah even greater autonomy if he would lay off the French and Transjordan was established as quasi-independent. The final draft of the League of Nations Mandate ratified in September 1923 was entitled: Mandate for Palestine and Transjordan – recognizing that each was a distinct political entity, already under separate governments.
So, Jordanians were never Palestinian.
Note the absence of Lebanon
Yes, so what? The Republic of Lebanon was not declared until 1926, so it wouldn’t be on a 1922 map, would it? I don’t know what you’re being so snooty about.
Then this extraordinary statement:
Britain returned the Mandate in May 1948. The invasion of the Arabs came six months later.
deegee | 13.06.07 – 7:19 pm
Six months later?
Well you’re supposed to be the history teacher living in Israel. ….but this wiki is how the rest of the world’s history books tell it:
The British mandate over Palestine was due to expire on 15 May 1948, and the Jewish leadership, led by future Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion, declared independence on 14 May.
….in an official cablegram from the Secretary-General of the League of Arab States to the UN Secretary-General on 15 May 1948, the Arab states publicly proclaimed their aim of creating a “United State of Palestine” in place of the Jewish and Arab, two-state, UN Plan.
….By the end of May, approximately 6,000 Syrian, 4,500 Iraqi, between 6,000 and 9,000 Transjordanian, 1,000 Lebanese and 5,500 Egyptian troops had invaded …..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab-Israeli_War
staggering.i know this is probably the wrong thread,but it kind of related.
the multi-billion pound funded bbc , on its bbc news 24 cannot figure out that the bomb blast in lebanon and the gaza civil war might, ya know,be somehow , connected???
anti-syrian MP blown up in lebanon.
hezbollah being rearmed.
hamas , with a headquarters in damascus, take over the gaza strip.
hello pincer movement being set up against israel by Iran via Syria?
to be fair to John Reith, he didnt say it included lebanon – just said that the borders had shifted a bit:
“and with the northern border with Lebanon a few miles to the South of its present position in one part”
lebanon/syria was under french influence during the time of the british transjordan.
thats why beirut was called the Arabian Riviera before the Isalmo nutters and the PLO arrived.
i remember that recently discovered color film of Beirut in the 1950s and not a hijab in sight. it looked exactly like the south coast of France, but with a better sun tan.
One can only imagine the anguish at Al-BBC. All those leftist and pro-islamic hacks wondering why their pet terrorists in Gaza are still fighting amongst themselves and not uniting to kill Jews. And remember folks , according to Al-Beeb the kind of thugs that throw people off 15 -storey -high buildings and shoot an unarmed man 41 times in the head are merely “activists”.
John Reith:
Wikipedia: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Mandate_of_Palestine
Answers.com: http://www.answers.com/topic/british-mandate-of-palestine
PalestineHistory.com: http://www.palestinehistory.com/history/phototime/tl_1922_1.htm
MidEastWeb: http://www.mideastweb.org/mandate.htm
Encyclopedia Brittanica: http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-45068/Palestine
and Abu Hejleh: http://www.hejleh.com/countries/jordan.html all say Jordan was part of the Mandate until Britain decided to separate the two parts.
The original Council of the League of Nations doesn’t provide a map but,
The Palestine Mandate (1922)
ART. 25. In the territories lying between the Jordan and the eastern boundary of Palestine as ultimately determined, …
What lies east of the Jordan River, but isn’t Iraq?
In History, as everything else, the majority isn’t always right but if you choose to dispute the majority view you had better provide some references.
BTW I teach English not History.
Yours in pomposity,
Windows warning messege:
————————————
Would you like to replace the existing story
Gaza rivals ‘agree on ceasefire’
Modified: Thu Jun 14 01:00:19 UTC 2007
With this one?
Hamas ‘tightening grip’ on Gaza
Modified: Thu Jun 14 07:00:59 UTC 2007
————————————-
BBC person: [presses enter]
http://www.newssniffer.co.uk/articles/48377/diff/0/1
John Reith:
….By the end of May, approximately 6,000 Syrian, 4,500 Iraqi, between 6,000 and 9,000 Transjordanian, 1,000 Lebanese and 5,500 Egyptian troops had invaded …
I believe you are confusing the ‘end’ of the British Mandate with the final withdrawal of troops. The British were supposed to complete their withdrawal in August. United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181 They were early.
The same Wiki article you quote says that the British refused to implement any parts of the (Nov 1947) Plan deemed unacceptable by either side, and refused to co-administer the Mandate with the UN Commission. The Mandate was effectively over six months before the invasion. Palestine was more or less in legal limbo while the British were packing.
This is all nitpicking and there are huge gaps in the record. I don’t expect to be alive when historians are finally allowed to explore British records for the time (possibly in tandem for with the Balen Report). I expect we will find that many of the regions current problems were significantly contributed to by British Imperial greed, short sightedness and duplicity. If Islam is the elephant in the room that the BBC refuses to acknowledge British conduct in the Middle East is the mastodon.
Given the BBC’s ‘neutrality’ over anything English I would have thought they would have been all over it.
“I expect we will find that many of the regions current problems were significantly contributed to by British Imperial greed, short sightedness and duplicity. If Islam is the elephant in the room that the BBC refuses to acknowledge British conduct in the Middle East is the mastodon.”
ah right, so it’s all the fault of the BRITISH, nothing to do with those poor innocent downtrodden Arabs or Jews. Why does that sound familiar??
“One can only imagine the anguish at Al-BBC. All those leftist and pro-islamic hacks wondering why their pet terrorists in Gaza are still fighting amongst themselves and not uniting to kill Jews. ”
terry johnson | 14.06.07 – 6:42 am
indeed. we currently have a seriously deadly civil war in gaza, with enormous ramifications if Hamas seize control and yet HYS is curiously mute on the issue:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/default.stm
deegee | 14.06.07 – 8:10 am
I will look up some references for you when I have some free time – it may not be today. If they are internet refs, I will do my best to ensure that I post working links.
A friend, who is an officer in the Royal Navy popped in last night and I showed him your “Palestine Flag’.
He said that it was a variant of the Red Ensign – the flag used by British merchant ships to indicate that they were liable to the protection of the Royal Navy and properly registered in a British registry. He thought it unlikely that it was used as the flag of the mandate administration.
He e-mailed me this morning to confirm that this was indeed the case. The flag’s use was authorized by an Admiralty Warrant of 27th October 1927 for use ‘on board vessels belonging to inhabitants of Palestine’ that were entered in the Palestine Shipping Register, which was established at about the same time.
Nice bit of blog warfare chaps, but getting back to the original post..
Changing “trenchant” to “outspoken” is nothing much to do with the normal BBC leftie bias, its more to do with the BBC’s other pet hobby of Dumbing Down. I mean, how many state educated readers would know what trenchant means?
Nick Griffin on Matthew Bannister this morning. Guess thats another one that slipped through?
Cockney:
ah right, so it’s all the fault of the BRITISH
I think you misunderstand me. The comment was directed at those fixated on the minute details of history and ignoring completely the broader picture and context. The BBC is famous for this, both by manipulating language Ahmadinejad: outspoken critic and omission of the M, I and T words: Three British men, Mohammed, Abdul and Imran from Barchester accused of preparing a bomb
Ultimately no matter what shenanigans the British were involved in between 1920 and 1948 the decisions of Jews and Arabs comes down to information, choice and judgement.
John Reith:
I bow to greater knowledge on flags.
It only goes to emphasize BioD’s point that there was no independant entity known as Palestine before 1948 and the British Mandate of Palestine was just that, British NOT Palestinian.
My favourite word?
FIGHTERS
Funny how the Palestinians are militants when they commit the atrocities of murdering Israeli women and children but get transformed into fighters when they commit the atrocities of murdering each other’s captives.
Hell, militant must be a dirty word for the BBC.
deegee | 14.06.07 – 11:29 am
No it doesn’t.
Just because a country is a colony or under administration by the international community, doesn’t mean it and its people do not exist.
India at the same time was ruled by a British Viceroy – but no-one would dispute either the concept of ‘India’ or the existence of Indians at that time.
Independent nation states in the poorer parts of the world are a relative novelty.
Here are some refs that support the points made in my earlier post:
Following its occupation by British troops in 1917•1918, Palestine had been controlled by the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration of the United Kingdom Government. Anticipating the establishment of the Mandate, the United Kingdom Government, as from 1 July 1920, replaced the military with a civilian administration, headed by a High Commissioner …David Lloyd George approved the appointment of Herbert Samuel as this High Commissioner….
…… on 23 July 1920 the French removed the newly-proclaimed nationalist government of Hashim al-Atassi and expelled King Faisal from Syria. British Foreign Secretary Earl Curzon wrote to Samuel in August 1920, stating, “I suggest that you should let it be known forthwith that in the area south of the [Sykes-Picot] line, we will not admit French authority and that our policy for this area {Transjordan} to be independent but in closest relations with Palestine.” ……..Without authority from London Samuel then visited Transjordan and at a meeting with 600 leaders in Salt announced the independence of the area from Damascus and its absorption into the mandate, quadrupling the area under his control. Samuel assured his audience that Transjordan would not be merged with Palestine.
…..The foreign secretary, Lord Curzon, repudiated Samuel’s action……
……. In March 1921 Colonial secretary, Winston Churchill, visited Jerusalem and after discussion with Abdullah accepted Transjordan into the mandatory area with the proviso that it would be under the nominal rule of the emir Abdullah (initially for six months) and would not form part of the Jewish national home to be established west of the River Jordan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Mandate_of_Palestine
The Emirate of Transjordan was an autonomous political division of the Mandate for Palestine, created as an administrative entity in April 1921 before the Mandate came into effect in September 1923.
….. Britain recognized Transjordan as a state on May 15, 1923.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transjordan
Thus Transjordan was a recognized ‘state’ before the Mandate took effect.
….the Second Congress of Muslim-Christian Associations (December 1920), passed a resolution calling for an independent Palestine; they then wrote a long letter to the League of Nations about “Palestine, land of Miracles and the supernatural, and the cradle of religions”, demanding, amongst other things, that a “National Government be created which shall be responsible to a Parliament elected by the Palestinian People……
One of the earliest Palestinian newspapers, Filastin founded in Jaffa in 1911 by Issa al-Issa, addressed its readers as “Palestinians”….
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian#Origins_of_Palestinian_identity
And those like BioD who make so much of Jordan’s annexation of the West Bank after the 1948 war ….to the extent of saying that it removes any basis on the part of West Bank residents for claiming to be Palestinian…..might reflect on the fact that Israel did not recognize the legality of the Jordanian annexation at the time.
John Reith;
http://www.imninalu.net/myths-pals.htm
“There has never been a land known as Palestine governed by Palestinians. Palestinians are Arabs, indistinguishable from Jordanians (another recent invention), Syrians, Iraqis, etc. Keep in mind that the Arabs control 99.9 percent of the Middle East lands. Israel represents one-tenth of one percent of the landmass. But that’s too much for the Arabs. They want it all. And that is ultimately what the fighting in Israel is about today… No matter how many land concessions the Israelis make, it will never be enough”. – Joseph Farah, “Myths of the Middle East” –
Let us hear what other Arabs have said:
“There is no such country as Palestine. ‘Palestine’ is a term the Zionists invented. There is no Palestine in the Bible. Our country was for centuries part of Syria. ‘Palestine’ is alien to us. It is the Zionists who introduced it”. – Auni Bey Abdul-Hadi, Syrian Arab leader to British Peel Commission, 1937 –
“There is no such thing as Palestine in history, absolutely not”. – Professor Philip Hitti, Arab historian, 1946 –
“It is common knowledge that Palestine is nothing but Southern Syria”. – Representant of Saudi Arabia at the United Nations, 1956 –
Concerning the Holy Land, the chairman of the Syrian Delegation at the Paris Peace Conference in February 1919 stated:
“The only Arab domination since the Conquest in 635 c.e. hardly lasted, as such, 22 years”.
What other Arabs declared after the Six-Day War:
“You do not represent Palestine as much as we do. Never forget this one point: There is no such thing as a Palestinian people, there is no Palestinian entity, there is only Syria. You are an integral part of the Syrian people, Palestine is an integral part of Syria. Therefore it is we, the Syrian authorities, who are the true representatives of the Palestinian people”. – Syrian dictator Hafez Assad to the PLO leader Yassir Arafat –
“As I lived in Palestine, everyone I knew could trace their heritage back to the original country their great grandparents came from. Everyone knew their origin was not from the Canaanites, but ironically, this is the kind of stuff our education in the Middle East included. The fact is that today’s Palestinians are immigrants from the surrounding nations! I grew up well knowing the history and origins of today’s Palestinians as being from Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Christians from Greece, muslim Sherkas from Russia, muslims from Bosnia, and the Jordanians next door. My grandfather, who was a dignitary in Bethlehem, almost lost his life by Abdul Qader Al-Husseni (the leader of the Palestinian revolution) after being accused of selling land to Jews. He used to tell us that his village Beit Sahur (The Shepherds Fields) in Bethlehem County was empty before his father settled in the area with six other families. The town has now grown to 30,000 inhabitants”. – Walid Shoebat, an “ex-Palestinian” Arab –
“There is not a solitary village throughout its whole extent (valley of Jezreel, Galilea); not for thirty miles in either direction… One may ride ten miles hereabouts and not see ten human beings. For the sort of solitude to make one dreary, come to Galilee… Nazareth is forlorn… Jericho lies a mouldering ruin… Bethlehem and Bethany, in their poverty and humiliation… untenanted by any living creature… A desolate country whose soil is rich enough, but is given over wholly to weeds… a silent, mournful expanse… a desolation… We never saw a human being on the whole route… Hardly a tree or shrub anywhere. Even the olive tree and the cactus, those fast friends of a worthless soil had almost deserted the country… Palestine sits in sackcloth and ashes… desolate and unlovely…”. – Mark Twain, “The Innocents Abroad”, 1867 –
Where had the Palestinians been hidden that Mark Twain did not see them? Where was that “ancient” people in the mid XIX century c.e.? Of course, modern biased Arab politicians try to discredit Mark Twain and insult and blame him of racism. Yet, it seems that there were other people that did not achieve in recognizing a single Palestinian in those times and earlier:
“In 1590 a ‘simple English visitor’ to Jerusalem wrote: ‘Nothing there is to bescene but a little of the old walls, which is yet remayning and all the rest is grasse, mosse and weedes much like to a piece of rank or moist grounde’.”. – Gunner Edward Webbe, Palestine Exploration Fund, Quarterly Statement, p. 86; de Haas, History, p. 338 –
“The land in Palestine is lacking in people to till its fertile soil”. – British archaeologist Thomas Shaw, mid-1700s
“Palestine is a ruined and desolate land”. – Count Constantine François Volney, XVIII century French author and historian –
“The Arabs themselves cannot be considered but temporary residents. They pitched their tents in its grazing fields or built their places of refuge in its ruined cities. They created nothing in it. Since they were strangers to the land, they never became its masters. The desert wind that brought them hither could one day carry them away without their leaving behind them any sign of their passage through it”. – Comments by Christians concerning the Arabs in Palestine in the 1800s
“Then we entered the hill district, and our path lay through the clattering bed of an ancient stream, whose brawling waters have rolled away into the past, along with the fierce and turbulent race who once inhabited these savage hills. There may have been cultivation here two thousand years ago. The mountains, or huge stony mounds environing this rough path, have level ridges all the way up to their summits; on these parallel ledges there is still some verdure and soil: when water flowed here, and the country was thronged with that extraordinary population, which, according to the Sacred Histories, was crowded into the region, these mountain steps may have been gardens and vineyards, such as we see now thriving along the hills of the Rhine. Now the district is quite deserted, and you ride among what seem to be so many petrified waterfalls. We saw no animals moving among the stony brakes; scarcely even a dozen little birds in the whole course of the ride”. – William Thackeray in “From Jaffa To Jerusalem”, 1844
“The country is in a considerable degree empty of inhabitants and therefore its greatest need is of a body of population”. – James Finn, British Consul in 1857
“The area was underpopulated and remained economically stagnant until the arrival of the first Zionist pioneers in the 1880’s, who came to rebuild the Jewish land. The country had remained “The Holy Land” in the religious and historic consciousness of mankind, which associated it with the Bible and the history of the Jewish people. Jewish development of the country also attracted large numbers of other immigrants – both Jewish and Arab. The road leading from Gaza to the north was only a summer track suitable for transport by camels and carts… Houses were all of mud. No windows were anywhere to be seen… The plows used were of wood… The yields were very poor… The sanitary conditions in the village [Yabna] were horrible… Schools did not exist… The rate of infant mortality was very high… The western part, toward the sea, was almost a desert… The villages in this area were few and thinly populated. Many ruins of villages were scattered over the area, as owing to the prevalence of malaria, many villages were deserted by their inhabitants”. – The report of the British Royal Commission, 1913
Besides them, many Arab sources confirm the fact that the Holy Land was still Jewish by population and culture in spite of the Diaspora: ·In 985 c.e. the Arab writer Muqaddasi complained that in Jerusalem the large majority of the population were Jewish, and said that “the mosque is empty of worshippers…” . ·Ibn Khaldun, one of the most creditable Arab historians, in 1377 c.e. wrote: “Jewish sovereignty in the Land of Israel extended over 1400 years… It was the Jews who implanted the culture and customs of the permanent settlement”. After 300 years of Arab rule in the Holy Land, Ibn Khaldun attested that Jewish culture and traditions were still dominant. By that time there was still no evidence of “Palestinian” roots or culture . ·The historian James Parker wrote: “During the first century after the Arab conquest [670-740 c.e.], the caliph and governors of Syria and the [Holy] Land ruled entirely over Christian and Jewish subjects. Apart from the Bedouin in the earliest days, the only Arabs west of the Jordan were the garrisons”. Even though the Arabs ruled the Land from 640 c.e. to 1099 c.e., they never became the majority of the population. Most of the inhabitants were Christians (Assyrian and Armenian) and Jews.
If the historic documents, comments written by eyewitnesses and declarations by the most authoritative Arab scholars are still not enough, let us quote the most important source for muslim Arabs:
“And thereafter We [Allah] said to the Children of Israel: ‘Dwell securely in the Promised Land. And when the last warning will come to pass, we will gather you together in a mingled crowd’.”. – Qur’an 17:104
Any sincere muslim must recognize the Land they call “Palestine” as the Jewish Homeland, according to the book considered by muslims to be the most sacred word and Allah’s ultimate revelation.
More: http://www.imninalu.net/myths-pals.htm
Well said Ben and JR, but as usual reason is lost on fundamentalists.
I love when Biodegradable says ‘It’s all very well for you to cherry-pick the parts of the report that you like,’ having just cherry picked the parts that HE likes!
He says the proposal that the word ‘terrorist’ “whether perpetrated by state or non-state agencies” should be implemented. So you’d be happy for the BBC to describe some of Israel’s actions as ‘terrorist’?
I can just imagine the steam emitting from BBBias if that happened!
Below, I have cherrypicked some more of the reports findings:
“What the BBC does now is good for the most part – some of it very good.
“But it could and should do better to meet the gold standard which it sets itself in its best programmes.”
“Apart from individual lapses, sometimes of tone, language or attitude, there was little to suggest systematic or deliberate bias.
“On the contrary, there was evidence, in the programming and in other ways, of a commitment to be fair, accurate and impartial.”
“There is high quality reporting from location, some outstanding current affairs programmes and the website provides much valuable historical and other context.”
What the report says is that coverage is really good, that it should be given the BBC’s resources but that it isnt perfect. The areas it isnt perfect though are not to do with bias but informing viewers about the conflict. Most viewers are pretty ignorant about it.
I would argue though that is their responsibility and not the media’s though. Most people just couldn’t be arsed.
The suggested methods to provide ‘context’ however were, for example providing the news website address during TV reports and directing viewers there for more info.
It was not the ‘cotext’ that some here might want ie ‘the history according to me’.
Defective Bullshit | 14.06.07 – 12:45 pm
When you’ve finished masturbating please do tell me when you think the BBC will implement the reccomendations made in the report that gives you so much satisfaction.
Yes, I would have no problem with the BBC describing “some of Israel’s actions” as terrorism, if and when Israel declares that its aim is to kill every Arab in its territories and elsewhere, if and when the IDF fires on demonstrators and enters hospitals in Gaza to finish off those it has previously wounded, if and when the IDF hurls Arabs from rooftops, if and when Israelis strap explosive belts to themselves and blow themselves up in Arab owned cafes in Gaza, if and when Israelis launch unguided missiles with warheads containg scrap metal and ball-bearings soaked in rat-poison in the direction of civilian areas of the “Palestinian Authority”.
If and when any of those things happen I would have no complaint about calling those actions, carried out by Israelis, Terrorism, but something tells me that isn’t what you had in mind.
Your requisite for calling Israeli actions “terrorism” is no doubt much milder than what you’d require to call similar actions carried out by “Palestinians” against Jews by their proper name.
Looking at what’s going on in Gaza today, are either Hamas or Fatah committing acts of terrorism?
So you dont actually want the BBC to be impartial, you want them to portray Israel as the good guys, Muslims as the bad guys.
Thats made clear by your post.
Bullshit Detective | 14.06.07 – 4:22 pm
Who exactly is that comment addressed to?
If you’re talking to me then you’ve made it very clear that you consider Israel to be the bad guys and the “Palestinians” the “good” guys.
Is that so?
By the way, neither you nor Reith has answered my question about the “Obstacles to Peace” series. Why was “Palestinian” terror not mentioned as a possible obstacle to peace?
Anyone else here find it amusing/interesting that the few pro-Al-BBC voices on this thread – Ben, JR and Bullshit – are all also anti-Israel ? What is it about this tiny democratic state that gets them so worked up ? It couldn’t be the religion of it’s founders could it ?
terry johnson | 14.06.07 – 6:20 pm
Name one anti-Israel thing I’ve said.
What is it about this tiny democratic state that gets them so worked up ? It couldn’t be the religion of it’s founders could it ?
terry johnson | 14.06.07 – 6:20 pm | #
Yes, but it’s also the religion of those who wish to destroy that state and slaughter its inhabitants.
‘John Reith:
terry johnson | 14.06.07 – 6:20 pm
Name one anti-Israel thing I’ve said.
John Reith | 14.06.07 – 6:35 pm |’
JR, your attempts to excuse anti-Israel bias is the evidence.
terry johnson | 14.06.07 – 6:20 pm
Hey TJ. I’m still waiting. This thread isn’t that long. Please point to one ‘anti-Israel’ statement I have made on this thread.
JR, would this include others’ anti-Israel quotes?
Battersea | 14.06.07 – 6:53 pm
This is the only comment in this thread where I have discussed BBC coverage:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/9160064073611762323/?a=44386#359794
Please explain how this comment counts as ‘excusing anti-Israel bias’.