Please use this thread for comments about the BBC’s current programming and activities. This post will remain at or near the top of the blog – scroll down for new topic-specific posts. N.B. this is not an invitation for general off-topic comments, rants or chit-chat. Thoughtful comments are encouraged. Comments may be moderated.
I do not disagree with your figures, but why can the BBC not use its headline titles consistently? Why is it “attack in urban areas” for Pal. attacks but “attack against civilians” for Israeli retaliations? Why are Pal. deaths recorded with little or sometimes no connection with the cause of the Israel action? The fact that Israel’s casualty rate is low is not thanks to a benign change of heart from the Pal’s…there are still Qassam’s rockets landing every day – regardless of what Israel does.
John Reith,
A very disappointing reaction, a smear because you can’t do anything else and then changing the subject to try to explain the bias as 373 to 7, but in doing so you made it worse for yourself. Did the BBC know that it would be 373 to 7 before making the decision to report in such a way, even ignoring that the majority of those 373 are combatents.
You can not answer that can you, because it is the truth and trying to explain it in the way you did was just sad.
Alan | 11.01.08 – 1:49 pm |
If not me, who? And if not now, when?
You ask a reasonable question; you deserve a straight answer.
In June 2004 the BBC was ‘on notice’ that Sheikh Sudais was a controversial figure because of the Canada ban.
That ban appeared to be based on a report by Steven Stalinsky of MEMRI, which purprted to quote a number of sermons by Dudais, the most recent of which was delivered in the Grand Mosque in Mecca on February 1st 2004.
The BBC cannot – and should not – take the unsubstantiated reports of MEMRI as fact. Particularly when it seems most unlikely that Mr Stalinsky was personally present in Mecca when the
offending (and offensive) words were spoken.
With no real way of standing-up Stalinsky’s hearsay evidence at short notice, the epithet ‘controversial’ was at least accurate and did not risk unfairness or defamation.
As you yourself have shown with the Fayad Aby Shamala libel, what appears in Israeli media isn’t always the Gospel truth.
Later, further enquiries supported the report in at least some of its particulars – hence John Ware’s interview with Bari.
AJukDD | Homepage | 11.01.08 – 2:03 pm
Did the BBC know that it would be 373 to 7 before making the decision to report in such a way…
There are circumstances when the BBC might consider putting a ‘non-event’ on the news – for instance, if a bull were to go on the rampage in a china shop but fail to break even a single saucer, then that would be remarkable.
But on the whole, with space tight, the BBC, like all other news organizations the world over, is more inclined to report rocket attacks that leave corpses on the ground than those that result in a rocket falling harmlessly into the Negev.
It would be wrong, of course, never to mention the Qassams that do no damage. And indeed the BBC does mention them every so often.
But to report every one?
That would be crazy.
Yet that would be the only way the BBC could meet DisHR’s invented (and perverse) standards of even-handedness.
John Reith:
AJukDD | Homepage | 11.01.08 – 11:55 am
what about the Honest Reporting detail on BBC bias, the BBC staffers can not deny the bias in that.
No, (Dis)Honest Reporting are a very biased outfit, there’s certainly no denying that.
John Reith | 11.01.08 – 12:31 pm | #
————————————————————————–
I realise you were taking advantage of the open goal in AJukDD’s
post. But. Facetiousness is no substitute for an answer
You are someone who routinely ignores the wood by concentrating on the trees so this ploy from you of all people is hypocritical and will not do.
We are trying to show you what damage your dishonest reporting is doing and all you do is rebuff a substantive allegation with your quip that it is from a biased outfit.
Not funny. If you had any brains you would get your own biased outfit in order, before making smug jokes.
Sue | 11.01.08 – 2:25 pm
You’re a bit slow on the draw, Sue. We’ve been debating the substantive element (if you can call it that) in the DisHonestReporting smear for some time since the opening gag.
How much longer do we have to put up with the twisted bile being spewed out by Reith and Gregory.They are robots.They are incapable of seeing reason or the truth.The people who post on this site put up valid point after valid point,only to see them blasted away sarcastically by the Haw-Haw twins.Just ban them!
John Reith | 11.01.08 – 9:21 am
In its website articles on the pilgrims, the BBC has repeated this statement:
In early December, Israel allowed some 2,200 Palestinian pilgrims to leave Gaza through the Rafah border-post.
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/5203690003280206318/#378655
Evidently untrue, and even contradicted in one of the articles. Strange. The BBC’s style is generally to obfuscate and mislead through distortion and omission of inconvenient facts. But it generally doesn’t lie outright, especially when the lie can be so easily exposed.
So what is going on here? Is this a Palestinian stringer writing without editorial control? And why would the BBC say something apparently positive about the Israelis here – unless it was simply a indirect insult at the Egyptians since at that stage they were refusing to let the pilgrims into Gaza and what could be more insulting than to be unfavourably compared to Israel?
Unfortunately your EU link is a bit short on info but it seems that the EU mandate to monitor the Rafah crossing has been extended to May 2008. But it is unclear whether the monitors are currently there or just ready to be deployed there. But we know that they have fled Rafah a few times as a result of Palestinian intimidation and something tells me they were not there when Egypt allowed the pilgrims back into Gaza.
In any event, David Preiser’s point still holds. If the Egyptians can let thousands of pilgrims from Gaza in through Rafah they can certainly let in a family with a sick child. The BBC should be exploring this aspect of the situation rather than spewing out propaganda that Hamas would be proud of, and as David says, increasing negativity against Israel.
John Reith,
So you really do not think that there is any bias in the way that the BBC have reported attacks on Israel?
The information is there in black and white in the headlines and you do not have the moral courage to agree that it is bias towards the Palestinians.
I think I know where your heading with your defence, you might point out a couple of sentences where you say that a few missiles fell in Israel, but many people do not have the time to read the full story after all time is short, they read the headlines, so space is short, time is short, you know that don’t you, I am sure the headline writers know that, but every one reported like that as laid out by Honest Reporting, it really is so sad, I am laughing as I type this.
Can you explain the reasons for the headlines, yes or no?
The reason is bias!!!
John Reith | 11.01.08 – 1:39 pm |
As the man with his hand on the info can you give a breakdown of the 373 Palistinian deaths ’caused’ by Israelis? How many were men, women, children? How many were civilians and how many were combatants? How many were killed by direct fire and how many by indirect fire.
Of the 53 ‘minors’ killed what is the age of minority used to define them so and what is the age break down? How many ‘minors’ were killed by direct fire and how many by indirect fire.
What is the break down by weapon used i.e firearm, aerial bomb, explosives etc
In the first Gulf War how many Iraqis died and how many British? Who were the aggressors in the first gulf war, Iraq or Britain?
John Reith | 11.01.08 – 1:39 pm,
There is no country on earth that would be as restrained as Israel in going after terrorists and trying to pinpoint them while they hide among civilians. Israel has called off attack after attack on these vermin because it was judged too dangerous to civilians. Typical of Reith to omit the fact that Israel was attacking the terrorists who were firing rockets at innocent civilians.
Then Reith, representing the “pro-Israel” BBC has this to say:
Some facts that both Mel and DisHonestReporting leave out of their consideration of why BBC reports more frequently deal with Israeli than Palestinian military actions .
That’s priceless. It should go on the sidebar of this site since it’s such a fine example of how the pro-terror BBC thinks: Palestinians who fire rockets from among civilians at other civilians are involved in military actions.
It’s great there are people like Mel Phillips and Honest Reporting around to expose the BBC’s vile agenda.
The Fat Contractor | 11.01.08 – 2:51 pm
As the man with his hand on the info can you give a breakdown of the 373 Palestinian deaths ’caused’ by Israelis?
Too soon for the 2007 figures but the following data from earlier years may help answer some of your queries:
Of the 53 ‘minors’ killed what is the age of minority used to define them so and what is the age break down?
I believe it’s 18.
In 2006, 31% of the Palestinian children killed were 12 years or younger.
According to UN OCHA, since September 2000, of Palestinians killed by Israeli security forces, whose status was known 59% were civilians.
Also from OHCA:
At least 284 Palestinians have been killed for moving within 150 metres of the perimeter fence with Israel, 117 of them civilians, including 23 children.
During 2006, Israeli Security Forces fired some 14,000 artillery shells into the Gaza Strip which were responsible for killing 59 persons, almost all of them civilians.
http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/d9d90d845776b7af85256d08006f3ae9/be07c80cda4579468525734800500272!OpenDocument
But when the Palestinians are killed in these military actions they suddenly become civilians. Its magic that!
But he has still not given us an answer about the headlines.
An excellent report by Honest Reporting, the BBC can not answer, all they can do is get their biased heads down and hope it goes away!
JR,
The BBC cannot – and should not – take the unsubstantiated reports of MEMRI as fact.
1. The link I provided above is
http://www.alharamainsermons.org/eng/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=71,
dated to 2002.
(that is not MERMI, but an Islamist site, devoted to promoting his sermons). Come on JR, you can do better than that!
2. MEMRI – it translates broadcast media – it has the originals, which with BBC’s vast knowledge of Arabic I’m sure it can translate for itself, and make sure that MERMI is not lying.
(btw, it turns out MEMRI has impeccable translations as proven by the Hamas Mickey Mouse debacle with CNN).
As you yourself have shown with the Fayad Aby Shamala libel, what appears in Israeli media isn’t always the Gospel truth.
Ah. But Haaretz is a gospel of truth for the BBC when Israel bashing can be achieved, as with Sami Michael “study”!
Here’s how Syria handled its own Muslim Brotherhood terrorists when they got out of hand with their killing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hama_Massacre
Ten of thousands surrounded and killed in a matter of weeks. Perhaps the BBC will compare that to the way Israel handles Muslim Brotherhood (Hamas) terrorists in order to highlight Israel’s restraint. Then again, perhaps it wont.
John Reith:
According to UN OCHA, since September 2000, of Palestinians killed by Israeli security forces, whose status was known 59% were civilians.
“whose status was known”
That puts a brick through the window of those figures right away.
John there is no excuse for not labeling the attacks by Palestinians as Palestinians, perhaps it is because the BBC is scretly admitting that Palestine never existed as a state, so they can not be Palestinians, is that it?
Perhaps they are from Jordan, or Egypt, or people that used to be under the Ottoman Empire and migrated to Israel when Jews started returning in the early 1900’s, perhaps the BBC is so confused that it can’t decide who they really are, it can’t be bias can it?
BBC (D)HYS
Sir Edmund Hillary: Your comments
The mountaineer Sir Edmund Hillary has died aged 88. Send us your comments.
Comments ….COMMENTS
what do you have to do to get tributes
hell’s teeth. He was a great mountaineer , humanitian doing great things in Nepal and extremely modest.
Obvious not up to the standards of these worthies
Arthur Miller: Your tributes http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/4258141.stm
Star Trek’s Scotty: Your tributes http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/4701309.stm
Ivan Noble: Your tributes (WHO?) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/4194973.stm
Mo Mowlam: Your tributes http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/4739555.stm
Peter Jennings: Your tributes http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/4131218.stm
Amrish Puri: Your tributes http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/4167599.stm
Ah. But Haaretz is a gospel of truth for the BBC when Israel bashing can be achieved, as with Sami Michael “study”!
Alan | 11.01.08 – 3:37 pm
Yes, as I mentioned at the time the World Service led with that “Israelis are racists” theme on their newscasts for at least an entire afternoon and continued up until close to midnight. They swarmed over it like ants on sugar. Evidently there was nothing nmore important going on in the world that day than a suspect poll published by people with an agenda.
In the Arab world, anyone that doesn’t happen to be shooting their AK at a zone 1m from the edges of your body is a civilian. And any rat-poison-soaked-bomb-belted, indoctrinated child that hasn’t yet detonated said bomb is a civilian.
That’s why those big meanie Israelis have killed so many ‘civilians’.
Why can’t they – all 7 million or so of them – just roll over and be brutally killed? It’s so unfair, it really is.
Amen….Gibby 3:56Pm
lurkingblackhat | 11.01.08 – 3:46 pm | #
Change in policy? Can’t see any ‘Your tributes’ since those you’ve highlighted, and it does seem somewhat presumptuous, even if individuals are widely liked.
“Tributes for Everest ‘colossus'”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7183037.stm
Most recent –
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7162715.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/7165393.stm
John Reith
“But on the whole, with space tight, the BBC, like all other news organizations the world over, is more inclined to report rocket attacks that leave corpses on the ground than those that result in a rocket falling harmlessly into the Negev.
It would be wrong, of course, never to mention the Qassams that do no damage. And indeed the BBC does mention them every so often.
But to report every one?
That would be crazy.”
Why would it be crazy? The fact that the missile has failed to smash some unsuspecting Israeli does not atone for the malicious intent behind it. It needs reporting like any other failed terrorist attempt.
Now lets run some cruel number game, so that people like JR can understand what is happening in the real world.
1. If 1500 rockets were 0 rockets fired there would be 0 Palestinians killed
2. Converting “minors” (17 year old Hamas and Islamic Jihad members are common) into children is also not honest.
Your own statistics from 2006 31% of 53 on 2007 = 16.43
Also Islamic Jihad has on many occasions, filmed as well sent children to collect launchers because they know
Israel will be reluctant to fire.
To show the dishonesty of reporting that as children, take this example:
How many minors are in British jails, vs. the cruel variant How many children are in British jails?
Now BBC, go and check how many children below 13 are in jail – the answer is a few, why – so as not to separete
them from mothers. They are getting top health care.
There is even a case when a mother stayed in jail so she could continue treatment in Israel.
3. To kill 53 real children in Europe, you would have to go to the school and kill two classrooms, or
bomb around 30 homes, since the average number of children is less than 2.
Now with 10-12 children per family in Gaza, (55% of population under 16 I believe),
you need to hit only 4-6 houses.
Now let’s say you are responding to 1500 rockets by firing back every time.
Only 5 would have to go astray to kill 53 “children”. That is 0.33%.
You see the number correctly, responding to 1500 rockets fired with potential to kill, IDF
is erring 0.33%, by the conservative 53 children, with the true 16.43, or two houses it
comes down to 0.13%.
This only shows how much restrain and care is IDF taking not to fire at random,
when responding to 1500 missiles.
4. Here is a very simple statistical trick that you can use to tell you if people are lying about the number of “militants” among the
civilians:
– Islamists seem to be always eager to maximize the number of “children” killed. So you can safely assume that no
more children are killed then they report.
– Population under 18 in Gaza and Shia areas of South Lebanon is 50% or more of the total.
– Since there is 1 in 2 chance of a civilian being a child (ridicilous I know, many 17 year olds are Hamas members),
you get twice as many civilians killed than children.
All the estimates so far are erring on the side of exeggarating the number of civilians.
– Subtract that from the total number of killed, to get the number of “militants”.
For 2007, Gaza 53 “children” yields 106 civilians (probably exaggerated for all the reasons above by the factor of 2).
Total number of killed 373. 373-106 = 267 “millitants”.
For Lebanon war, run the number for yourselves, but it seems that more than 500 Hezbullah and a few Amal were killed.
ow, go to an expert on urban warfare and ask if ratio of 106:373 of civilian collateral damage vs. combatants when responding to fire
or even worse preventing incoming fire is bad.
Although cruel, these numbers are amazingly small – the IDF is very precise.
Especially, given my conservative number, the true numbers are more like 70:373
Finally,
373 to 7 rate is not because the lack of intent to kill more Israelis, it is because of the constant operation preventing it, that in
return ends up killing 373.
The cruel game goes further like this, if only 100 Palestinians were killed, the total number of rockets would have been 6000 and 60-7
0 Israelis would have been killed (not 4 times 7 due to probable drastic increase in accuracy from more trials).
What do you expect Israel to do?
What would your government do?
Do the number game so that the “score” is even, around 80:80?
Ah – I remember Britain firebombed Dresden (and justly so!), when V2 falling on British cities
Now could someone tell me why are Hamas and Islamic Jihad firing those rockets?
If they stopped the death rates would go down and the siege would slowly be reduced.
John Reith | 11.01.08 – 3:20 pm |
John, thank you for your response. If you would kindly indulge me a little further.
Could you please explain how you can quote 373 Palestinian deaths without having a breakdown? How is the total arrived at? Is it a running total that the BBC maintains and if so to what purpose?
The problem with reporting deaths of 14-18 year olds as ‘minors’ is that it gives a false impression. As you will no doubt be aware teenagers can be buggers at the best of times. When they have been wound up and pointed at other teenagers they can be lethal. This is why I asked about direst and indirect fire. If the teenagers were attacking the Israelis with firearms …
It is a shame that 31% of deaths were children under 13 but who is to blame when the rocket sites are placed in playgrounds or next to schools? Sadly, if the Israelis restrained themselves from firing on such targets it would only encourage the Palestinians to site more of their rockets in such areas, not that they need such encouragement. The moral high ground is useless if all it holds is a cemetery.
The UN OHCA figures are interesting but fail to place the deaths in context. This is an interesting line:
Persons protected under occupation law are considered as civilians except for that period of time that they may be actively engaged in hostilities or are carrying arms.
So a terrorist who is not actively in combat or unarmed is classed as a civilian???
It is also interesting that included in the figures for Palestinian deaths at the hands of the Israelis are those who died of medical conditions who could not get to hospital because of the security barrier! Surely there are hospitals in Gaza or the West Bank where Palestinians can get treatment without passing through the barrier? It would seem that these people are victims, not of the Israelis but of the Palestinian terrorists, if we are to play the blame game. After all if they didn’t try to get through the checkpoints posing as medical cases …
I find it hard to believe that any conscript would shoot a child for approaching a security fence. It seems too far fetched. I wonder how many of these children innocently wandered up to the fence and were shot? Unfortunately the site you kindly provided does not say.
It is also interesting that the number of Israeli children dying is decreasing. Perhaps this is to do with Palestinian terrorists not being able to blow up school girls on buses? Due to the security fence perhaps?.
Another interesting line:
Since the 2005 disengagement, three IDF and no civilians have been killed inside the Gaza Strip.
I was under the impression that there were no Israelis in Gaza at all. Hardly surprising that none were killed there.
It gets even more confusing when you consider this line
More than twice as many Palestinians were killed by other Palestinians (415) in 2007 as were killed by Israelis (185)
So only 185 people were killed by Israelis, I thought the figure was 373?
What we could do with is a BBC programme on the statistics and how they are used to justify the unjustifiable.
Bryan you are missing the point to today’s new leftists, like Reith.
The death of an Israeli just isn’t important. They are guilty, so they deserve to die.
Hence, deluded losers strapping bombs on and detonating themselves in a pizza parlor is a military operation…thugs with automatic weapons crashing in on a wedding party and gunning down everyone is a military operation…firing 1500 rockets randomly at a town and having their children retrieve the rocket launchers is a military operation….yet a nation responding with its military to protect its citizens against such barbarity is a international war crime.
Even if Israeli children are killed they are important only in so far as their guilt of having made the poor “Palistinians” kill them.
Meet the new face of anti-semitism and just as ugly as the previous versions. They dress it up in all kinds of rhetoric and excuses but it boils down to same old standards, Israeli’s don’t measure up as humans.
John Reith…So what your saying is that the number of casualties on a particular side in a conflict dictates how much coverage (bias)the BBC gives it?I seem to remember Question Time shortly after 9/11,when the ‘hand picked’ audience was mainly composed of anti-Americans.Now on 9/11 3000+ Americans were killed compared to 0 anti-Americans.Strange!
JR,
TFC is right,
More than twice as many Palestinians were killed by other Palestinians (415) in 2007 as were killed by Israelis (185)
So only 185 people were killed by Israelis, I thought the figure was 373?
Where did you get the number 373 from?
See I still trust the BBC, I took your number for granted!
JR,
I’m waiting for an answer:
Why are Hamas et. al. firing rockets at Israel?
They are not fighting the occupation in Gaza – Israel is not there. They are only hurting their cause in the public eye. They cannot inflict too much damage on Israel. They are paying in blood of their own people?
If they stopped, the siege would probably be eased, etc.
I think I know (3 reasons at least), but I would like to hear what you think.
Alan | 11.01.08 – 4:41 pm |
Why are Hamas et. al. firing rockets at Israel?
You answer your own question, almost; They are paying in blood of their own people?. The terrorists, be they Islamic, Irish or whatever care nothing for ‘the people’ they care only for their cause and the personal jollies it brings them.
Hamas can’t stop provoking the Israelis as they need the fight to continue under the scrutiny of the World. If they stopped the Israelis would stop and how would they justify killing Jews then?
Jihadi winning scenarios in warfare: (I haven’t invented it, but I cannot seem to find the source):
1. I kill you – I win!
2. You kill me, I am a shaheed, and get 72 virgins – I win!
3. I kill your civilians, they are kufars and deserve to die – I win
4. You kill my civilians, your allies in the West hate you – I win
Seems to me Israel’s predicament
after building the barrier and preventing scenario #3, is now more or less scenario #4.
Not enough Israelis are dying I guess…
“Today” wheels out ace reporter and Afghanistan expert David Loyn to rubbish . . . er . . . a film – “Charlie Wilson’s War”. According to its publicity this film is only “based” on a true story: it doesn’t purport to be the truth and is described by IMDb as a “drama” – not a documentary. Why would the BBC bother? After all, other films “based” on a true story but not telling it all like it was (eg Braveheart) were not singled out for the BBC “truth” test. Could it possibly be that CWW is about an American – a Texan no less? Wilson sent money to Afghans fighting against the Russians and, later, against the Communist regime in Kabul. Unfortunately Wilson channeled money to and through some very nasty Afghans indeed.
Strange then, that when “An Inconvenient Truth” (a “documentary” no less) is rumbled – a film containing manifold untruths and exaggerations – the BBC’s environment correspondent (now “analyst”) issues an internal memo recommending his colleagues to play down Gore’s lies.
Alan | 11.01.08 – 7:13 am |
There is a difference between “liberal” and “Leftoid”. My definition of the latter includes a certain amount of intellectual fascism, which old-school liberalism does not.
In any case, surely all B-BBC denizens are, at least, above average.
Ah,
A perfect controversial case for a little guessing game.
Bishop backs Muslim prayer call
http://www.oxfordmail.net/news/headlines/display.var.1957663.0.bishop_backs_muslim_prayer_call.php
AFAIK, BBC hasn’t carried this story yet.
Anyone cares to guess what the title and the contents will be?
Right. Since the BBC obviously have never visited Rafah may I put in a wee point?
Drive from El Gorah (MFO Base) or from the nearest large Egyptian town with a hospital (El Arish) and you enter a series of metal roofed sheds on the border. To the left is a small hut which houses the Egyptian Border Police post. Nice coffee in there by the way. You then pass through a barrier and about 100 yards ahead is the Israeli post on the right. The road itself however goes straight on for Gaza and if you wish to ENTER ISRAEL you have to turn right, stop at the first post and follow the road along the fence for half a mile and then a sharp turn left at the watchtower takes you onto the main road heading for Tel Aviv. So regardless of where the EU muppets are (in a large air conditioned building to the right of the initial Egyptian hut by the sheds) you can get in and out of Gaza WITHOUT GOING ANYWHERE NEAR ISRAEL or the road heading for Tel Aviv. Israel can control people coming from Gaza who turn left towards their post or those coming from Sinai who turn right. Those who go straight on heading North or South can do so without being stopped EXCEPT by the Egyptians/EU. I have gone straight on on two occasions heading into Gaza to drop senior officers off for social events; otherwise I’ve always turned right onto the Tel Aviv slip road and it is then that I have had to stop and chat to the IDF boys (and girls).
If an old man cannot get to hospital in El Arish then it is the fault of the Egyptians not the Israelis.
Then again is it not funny how the BBC rarely mention the hundreds of Palestinians (including those who try to smuggle bombs into Israeli hospitals)who are treated by Israeli doctors every year…..
———–
So get your fat wobbly bum down to the border Mr Al-Haiji Bowen and look for yourself rather than rely on the obviously truthful accounts of your Palestinian stringers. (/end sarcasm)
[And just to counter any accusations of ‘well it has changed since your day’ I have confirmed that the layout remains the same with a colleague who is still out with the MFO at El Gorah. Jammy Aussie sod – six months on three months off for £100,000 plus expenses and free flights home to Oz!]
John Reith:
Sue | 11.01.08 – 2:25 pm
“You’re a bit slow on the draw, Sue…..”
Yes I am a bit on the slow side. Dumb enough to hope you might be able to see what we’re getting at.
But now you’re a bit slow on the draw, John. Lots more questions to wriggle out of answering properly have piled up since you went off somewhere.
Let’s have something from you about JeremyBowen.
http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_print=1&x_context=3&x_outlet=12&x_article=1337
Remind me why is he still chief ME correspondent ?
John Reith | 11.01.08 – 9:21 am |
http://consilium.europa.eu/cms3_…?id=979& lang=EN
This is just about EU BAM’s bailiwick. Nowhere does it state that Israel has the only say in whether the border is open or not. Obviously Israel’s security needs are taken into consideration. Any time that border is opened or closed, it is with Egyptian consent. If Egypt wanted to, it could take the initiative and move to reopen the border. It seems they just don’t feel the urge to do so.
There is nothing in either the EU BAM Rafah mission, or the Agreement on Movement and Access which says that Israel makes the calls, and Egypt must obey. If anything, the border could be closed if the EU BAM gave an unfavorable review of the PA’s handling of the crossing.
Perhaps you feel that Egypt has no real authority and just does Israel’s bidding?
This article by the (not exactly in thrall to Israel) Washington Post seems to agree with me:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/17/AR2007061701357.html?hpid=topnews
Egypt has a lot more to say about the “siege” than either you or your colleagues seem to believe.
John Reith gets paid by the same corporation that makes Eastenders, Casualty, Flog It, Celebrity Come Dancing and employs Jonathan Ross to ask questions about which ex-prime ministers people think about while masturbating.
His employer happily finances all that junk, so the junk John writes here is just par for their course. The BBC has low standards, but then why bother about quality when you get paid whatever you do? Of course, I doubt the BBC pays John as much as it pays Chris Moyles, but then John doesn’t quite produce the quality of trash that Chis does, and the BBC pays the really big money to those who make the real, downmarket rubbish.
And
http://theymadeitup.squarespace.com/the-latest-news-and-discussion/
dave t | 11.01.08 – 5:42 pm |
Thanks for the dose of reality.
Bowen most certainly has been down there, you can be sure. The BBC has correspondents in Egypt, and they ought to know better as well.
David Preiser
Israel’s capacity to close down the crossing stems from it ability to prevent the EU monitors from reaching it. According to the AMA, the Rafah Crossing is open only when the EU monitors are present. When Israel issues a security warning, according to which the crossing is not to be opened, the EU monitors do not take up their post at the crossing, and it remains closed. This occurs, firstly, because the EU monitors believe that the AMA does not permit them to open the crossing when one of the parties to the agreement is opposed to doing so. According to the EU monitors’ representative, they are only allowed to open the crossing when Israeli security personnel staff the situation room from which they are supposed to monitor the activity at the crossing. Secondly, the EU monitors, who are reside in Israel, cannot physically reach the crossing when Israel does not wish for them to do so, because in order to do so they first need to pass through the Israeli controlled Kerem Shalom crossing, which Israel closes when there are “security alerts”.
http://www.btselem.org/english/Gaza_Strip/Rafah_Crossing.asp
In November 2005, following the pullout of Israeli troops and settlers from the Gaza Strip a few months earlier, an Agreement of Movement and Access (AMA) was signed by the Israeli government and the Palestinian Authority (PA) mandating a European Union Border Assistance Mission (EU BAM) to control the Rafah Crossing. Israel, however, retained the ability to close the border by preventing the access of EU workers to the Crossing. Since June 2006, Rafah Crossing has opened only on an erratic and sporadic basis. Last summer, an extended closure of the Rafah Crossing resulted in the deaths of four stranded Palestinians.
Following the takeover of the Gaza Strip by Hamas on 14 June 2007, the Israeli authorities have taken the position that the AMA and other such agreements no longer apply and have indicated that the crossing will remain closed until further notice. On 8 July the head of the EU BAM mission announced a reduction in the number of EU monitors, stating “[we] are not foreseeing a return to normalcy in the near future”.
http://www.amnesty.org/en/alfresco_asset/a6734ca5-a31f-11dc-8d74-6f45f39984e5/mde150482007en.html
teddy: 10.01.08 – 1.22pm
– usefully refers to E.U. Referendum piece;
That article explains that the BBC
is deferential to the E.U. because the BBC is ” not daring to admit that the real power to determine the whole freamework in which it” (the BBC) “operates is held not by our provincial government in Whitehall but by our real government in Brussels.”
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2008/01/true-masters-of-broadcasting.html
Anyone else see the report by the BBC about all the snow is Scotland? Some of the heaviest for his time of year.
Hmm. I thought with all this climate chnage we wouldn’t see snow like that again?
Tonight’s Six O’Clock News on BBC 1.
Lead item: pretty Muslim girl unlawfully killed in obvious “honour” killing.
Second item: Old lefty Peter Hain MP under the spotlight for £100,000 of undeclared donations, some of which came from some diamond geezer but which were channeled through dodgy inactive trust.
Now, just reported, Scotland’s ski resorts are having their best snow for years.
In other words, Islam in the spotlight; Labour under the microscope; and global warming looking dodgy.
Lock your doors – the Martians have obviously landed. Taking over the Beeb was obviously first on the agenda.
The BBC, somewhat reluctantly, and late in the day, seems to recognise that there may, just may, mind you, be problems with the mass immigration into the UK. The BBC no longer dismisses out of hand the work of people like Sir Andrew Green, and Professor Robert Rowthorn, and the website: http://www.migrationwatch.org
But the BBC still shows a reluctance to recognise the seriousness of the on-going mass migration (and Brown/Miliband enthusiasm to extend mass immigration into the UK of even more Eastern European and Turkish millions);there should be more national reporting of problems like this:-
“Eastern Europeans ‘targeted by angry Asians'”
http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/Eastern-Europeans-39targeted-by-angry.3648445.jp
John Reith | 11.01.08 – 6:16 pm |
In that case I stand corrected. I wasn’t aware that Israel had a backhanded way to close the border crossing.
Now you just have to prove that dave t is lying.
Or maybe I’m not so wrong.
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/12/29/palestinians.html?ref=rss
http://africa.reuters.com/world/news/usnL2928180.html
http://www.arabnews.com/?page=4§ion=0&article=105099&d=30&m=12&y=2007
http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/RWB.NSF/db900SID/KKAA-79M36X?OpenDocument
Now why would all these people be laboring under the misapprehension that Egypt could open the border if it wanted to? Why would Israel protest Eqypt’s opening of their border if Israel could just stop the EU BAM people from getting there?
I provisionally withdraw my surrender.
Amazing, what are the headlines on the BBC website? Of the first three, one is about the honour killing of a young Muslim woman by her family, and the other is about a race attack by Asian Muslims on a British man.
Is it too much to believe that the message is finally getting through and the Beeb are going from now on to give these stories the prominence they deserve?