The BBC coverage of Israel comes under scrutiny here.
Honest Reporting?
Bookmark the permalink.
Search Biased BBC
Recent Comments
- Zephir Dec 23, 00:37
Start the Christmas Week 23rd December 2024
bbc’s bloody outrageous fixations with muslims, black people, Elon Musk and Donald Trump, for a publicly funded and impartial organisation.… - StewGreen Dec 23, 00:32
Start the Christmas Week 23rd December 2024
BBC “Elon Musk’s curious fixation with Britain ” by Mike Wendling is rightly double ratioed and CCBGB’d When someone has… - Guest Who Dec 22, 23:11
Start the Christmas Week 23rd December 2024
There might be a smidge of irony here. https://x.com/rrrrnessa/status/1870495794236977278?s=61 You people are deeply, dangerously unwell and evil. The majority of… - JohnC Dec 22, 22:54
Start the Christmas Week 23rd December 2024
I always go to the user reviews then sorth them by date so you get the ones after the initial… - BRISSLES Dec 22, 22:49
Start the Christmas Week 23rd December 2024
Also a non white detective in new season of Death in Paradise. The diversity directive that has infected the drama… - JohnC Dec 22, 22:44
Start the Christmas Week 23rd December 2024
Children among dozens killed in Israeli strikes, Gaza officials say https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cz9g4yl8j17o Here’s a new low: The BBC went from telling… - Deborah Dec 22, 22:22
Start the Christmas Week 23rd December 2024
I used to be a Covid numbers junky, from watching Valance asking for the next slide please to still regularly… - StewGreen Dec 22, 22:14
Start the Christmas Week 23rd December 2024
BBC presenters “we are IMPARTIAL IMPARTIAL IMPARTIAL” BBC presenter Paul Lewis Money tweets An interesting list of broadly good things… - Deborah Dec 22, 22:12
Start the Christmas Week 23rd December 2024
I am reading John C’s first post, and I am watching Wolf Hall at the same time. Cromwell’s daughter has…
Categories
agw anti-American anti-conservative anti-Israel anti Israel. pro Palestinian Antisemitism BBC - sickeningly biased at all times. BBC agenda BBC bias bbc bias and balance. bbc bias by omission BBC censorship BBC Question Time BBC selectivity bias Biased BBC climate change dhimmis general thread immigration Islam israel Mark Mardell obama obama bias Obamalove open thread pro-labour pro-palestinian pro EU pro Hamas pro Islam pro Labour bias pro Obama PRO OBAMA AT ALL COSTS. pro Obama BBC agenda question time question time live Richard Black save gordon. USA politics US economy US News US politics US presidential elections
Dear Ed
I am an avid watcher and listener of the BBC and I really don’t know what you mean by “rocket attacks”. Are these a figment of your imagination? I mean, I’m sure Jeremy Bowen would have given us an in-depth analysis of these ballistic events if they did occur. You really must stop peddling fairy tales.
The BBC, its reporting on Israel and half the story.
Seven Palestinians killed in Gaza
Seven Palestinians, including four militants, have died in Israeli raids in the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip, reports say.
Medical sources and witnesses said the deaths came after Israeli tanks pushed into eastern suburbs of Gaza City. There were reports of heavy exchanges of fire between soldiers and militants. The Israelis frequently mount raids which they say are aimed at preventing the firing of rockets from Gaza into neighbouring southern Israel.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7188807.stm
The BBC in its quest to demonise the jew reports yet again from Gaza.
Here are a few snippets from the same region which Al Beeb doesn’t wish for you to know.
1) 2 tons of explosives found amongst humanitarian aid en route to Gaza
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3494131,00.html
2) Kibbutz volunteer killed by Palestinian sniper near Gaza Strip
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3494366,00.html
3) Hamas Arrests Senior Fatah Official In Gaza –
http://www.nasdaq.com/aspxcontent/NewsStory.aspx?cpath=20080115%5CACQDJON200801150244DOWJONESDJONLINE000085.htm&selected=9999&selecteddisplaysymbol=9999&StoryTargetFrame=_top&mkt=WORLD&chk=unchecked&lang=&link=&headlinereturnpage=http://www.international.na
4) Palestinian news agency reports PA security forces uncover improvised projectile, 35 lbs of explosives hidden in Nablus Casbah
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3494213,00.html
And as for the BBC excuse for what is currently transpiring in Gaza;
“The Israelis frequently mount raids which they say are aimed at preventing the firing of rockets from Gaza into neighbouring southern Israel”
Here is what a real Islamic news agency has to say on the matter.
Armed confrontations have broken out between Palestinian fighters and Israeli troops in northern Khan Younes, southern Gaza Strip, according to Palestinian witnesses on Tuesday.They told KUNA that these clashes focused around Kissufim and the military post located north of Khan Younes, along the borders between Gaza Strip and Israel. Palestinians fired mortar shells at Kissufim, but no injuries have been reported, they added. Meanwhile, Ezzidin Al-Qassam Brigades, the military wing of Hamas, said its activists fired 17 mortar shells this morning at Kissufim.
http://www.kuna.net.kw/NewsAgenciesPublicSite/ArticleDetails.aspx?id=1875253&Language=en
So the IDF went in only after 17 mortar shells were lobbed into their country from outside it.
The BBC, its reporting on Israel and half the story.
The fundamental dishonesty of DisHonestReporting’s report is quickly apparent if any reader happens to follow the links it cites.
For example, DisHR selects the story below as an example of a ‘Palestinian attack’.
DisHonestReporting goes on to criticize the headline of this story •
Gaza explosion kills two children
claiming that this headline took the responsibility for the attacks away from those who instigated {it}.
There is one small problem with this analysis: There was no attack.
The story simply is not about a Palestinian attack. It is about an accident in which two children died after a piece of ordnance they had been playing with exploded.
Witnesses disagree as to the nature of the object that exploded. Some say it was an Israeli shell or mortar round. Another says it was a Palestinian Qassam rocket that had fallen short.
The BBC recorded both conflicting testimony.
DisHonestReporting cites this as evidence of BBC bias and claims the BBC should have identified the Palestinians as the perpetrators in the headline.
On another thread, commenters claim that this headline critique section of DisHR’s report is the most compelling and persuasive evidence of alleged BBC bias.
Read the story yourself. Try to keep an open mind. Then please explain to me in what way this headline shows bias against Israel. Here is the story in full:
Gaza explosion kills two children
Two Palestinian children, a brother and sister aged eight and six years, have died in an explosion in the town of Beit Hanoun in the northern Gaza Strip.
Eight other people, including children, were wounded in the blast.
Witnesses and medics in the Gaza Strip said that a shell or mortar they were playing with exploded.
But another report said that the explosion was caused by a rocket fired by Palestinian militants that had come to ground inside Gaza.
This is not an unusual occurrence.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6934683.stm
I said on another thread that DisHonestReporting was clutching at straws. This loudly trumpeted example doesn’t even have the substance of a straw.
Well argued on that one Reith. I doubt however that you will be able to explain away the others. Such as this one:
“West Bank clash leaves three dead”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7162878.stm
Some “clash” eh? Imagine how the BBC would have reported it if Jewish settlers had attacked Palestinian hikers (if they exist) in this way.
Abandon Ship! | 15.01.08 – 10:43 am
Well….once again DisHR choses to suppress the relevant circumstances.
This was not a Palestinian attack on Israel, nor on civilians.
It was an exchange of fire between Palestinians and two Israeli soldiers from an occupying army in the West Bank.
Both parties to the incident were armed.
There were casualties on both sides.
so
West Bank clash leaves three dead”
seems a fair and sensible headline.
DisHR hold the view that this was a ‘terrorist’ incident. Many other s will disagree, holding that attacks on armed IDF men in the West Bank are acts of legitimate ‘resistance’. The BBC neither endorses one view or the other.
It seems to me that DisHR is inviting the BBC to endorse the ‘legitimacy’ of Israel’s occupation… which is not the same thing as being impartial or unbiased.
A poor response this time Reith.
“DisHR hold the view that this was a ‘terrorist’ incident. Many others will disagree, holding that attacks on armed IDF men in the West Bank are acts of legitimate ‘resistance’. The BBC neither endorses one view or the other.”
The BBC view: If an IDF soldier is shot dead in East Jerusalem for example, because “many” (e.g. Azzam Tamimi, Tom Paulin and Seumus Milne)think this is legitimate resistance, then the BBC does not feel able to pronounce on the morality of the killing.
Has it really come to this at Broadcasting House?
Is the BBC view on British soldiers killed by the Taliban in Afghanistan or Shia gangs in Iraq is the same?
BTW were the IDF men in uniform, because if not you could no doubt take the view of “many” that they could have been shot as zionist spies.
Who are the “many” by the way, apart from the pond life listed above?
‘I said on another thread that DisHonestReporting was clutching at straws. This loudly trumpeted example doesn’t even have the substance of a straw.
John Reith | 15.01.08 – 10:26 am | #’
Mr. Reith, you do have a point regarding the one article you mention, and you might consider pointing this out to the Honest Reporting team as an error to be rectified.
However, you are focusing on one example at the expense of the many other articles cited in Honest Reporting’s analysis. You also fail to address the other issues noted in the report (balance in the number of reports of Israeli military activity versus reports of Palestinian rocket attacks, and use of images to accompany stories).
I’m greatly surprised by this, since you often criticize Biased BBC posters on exactly the same grounds – focusing on one article or section of reporting instead of the whole.
What is your opinion of the report as a whole? It would be interesting to hear a balanced view from you on the whole issue to accompany your rather eager condemnation of one minor mistake in the content.
Two articles I wrote yesterday:
http://rightforscotland.blogspot.com/2008/01/bbc-picture-editor-on-message.html
and
http://rightforscotland.blogspot.com/2008/01/bbc-half-story-all-time.html
Mr. Reith lets the cat out of the bag.
I am afraid that your bias is completely visible in the example that you gave. In that incident two off duty soldier, armed but not in uniform and a 189 year old girl accompanying them went for walk along a valley near where they lived and near a Palestinian village. They were ambushed and killed by Palestinian policemen from Fatah who subsequently gave themselves up to the Plalestinian security forces.
As far as I am concerned, politically I would love my fellow Israeli citizens living in Kiriyat Arba to agree to come home to live in the State of Israel.
However, the attitude implicit in the Mr. Reith’s retelling of the story is that as Jews in the area, especially those epitomes of consummate evil, the “settlers”, their deaths could be expected or at least excused. This was not a clash between Israeli troops and Palestinians but an unprovoked attack on walkers who, as it turned out, had every right to be armed as they managed to kill one of their attackers and wound others.
It is precisely this blind mind set on the part of Mr. Reith and his fellow media persons that this site complains about.
Don’t confuse them with the facts, especially if you have to think and make complex judgments. Dead Jew right, dead Arab wrong.
Avi | 15.01.08 – 1:09 pm
I am afraid that your bias is completely visible…
No, it’s just you think people who fail to toe your line are biased.
I don’t have a dog in the Israel-Palestine fight.
I favour neither one side nor the other.
I wish both peoples well in the long term.
Both sides have suffered from injustice and both have visited injustices upon the other. Both indeed, have perpetrated sickening atrocities.
Both will, no doubt, continue to do so. But in the end they will have to learn to live together. And that in itself will be ‘justice’ of a sort.
That said, Israel appears to have reduced the proportion of innocent civilians it kills from 54% of the total body count to closer to 35%, according to B’Tselem’s assessment. Credit where credit’s due.
Mr. Reith,
I still think that you have missed the point completely. If the BBC’s coverage was not tainted by basic support and understanding for the “Poor Palestinians” and an antagonism to Israel and Zionism then this web site and many others would not exist.
The received wisdom which shines through statistical analysis of the BBC’s output, as well as the subjective impressions by many of those who use the BBC’s output is that by definition Israel is in the wrong and Palestinians are only exercising their legitimate rights of self defense as a result of how they have been oppressed by the Europeans (with special responsibility to HMG) and their colonial agents since time immemorial.
This ethos is based on total ignorance of history, a warped ideological rejection of ” absolute truth” and clings to the shibboleth of “parallel narratives”. If I wanted parallel narratives I can get those on BBC Prime or Grimms Fairy Tales.
The BBC is supposed to provide balanced news and analysis. What it does to provide a platform for Anti American and Anti Zionist propaganda.
Quite frankly, the BBC could learn a lot from the IBA (Israel Broadcasting Authority) which was created in the image of the BBC but now far surpasses it terms of objective coverage of the conflict, strange as this sounds.
If they were off duty and not in uniform to all intents and purposes they were civilians. Their killing violates Geneva Convention and cannot be justified.
John Reith
Its not a group of gentlemen playing conkers its war and sadly ‘innocent’ civilians (in this case very sadly some really are innocent however others very much not) do get hurt or killed in wars its a very inexact science.
The suggestion that the state of Israel deliberately targets those civilians or is so willfully negligent it makes no effort to attempt to keep them from harm is a false suggestion that needs evidence before I will believe it.
Were that at least that were the same for the terrorists, alas that is not the case.
The BBC view: If an IDF soldier is shot dead in East Jerusalem for example, because “many” (e.g. Azzam Tamimi, Tom Paulin and Seumus Milne)think this is legitimate resistance, then the BBC does not feel able to pronounce on the morality of the killing.
Well, while I agree with the general view amongst many commentators that BBC coverage of Israel/Palestine issues is strongly biased against Israel and towards the Palestinians I don’t agree with the most of the views about Israel and the Palestinians voiced in criticism of the BBC on this site.
Israel has been a brutal occupying force in much of what was called Palestine and has cynically undermined the Palestinian Authority and its attempt to govern. Although clear lines are hard to draw, the distinction between terrorist and resistance fighter is not as obvious or absolute to me as to you.
Is the BBC view on British soldiers killed by the Taliban in Afghanistan or Shia gangs in Iraq is the same?
I don’t know what the BBC’s “view” is but to me there is a distinction. British soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq are operating in support of and at the invitation of governments which have some degree of legitimacy and are – I think – recognised by the UN. The Taliban and the Shia militias are attempting to overthrow those governments.
Who are the “many” by the way, apart from the pond life listed above?
Abandon Ship! | 15.01.08 – 12:26 pm | #
Well, I guess I must be one but while coherent argument might trouble me being called names on a blog doesn’t seem to bother me at all.
Wow, the BBC/Reith blows in, picks a huge cherry, and blows out, why am I not surprised?
It is exactly the same tactics the BBC use time and time again when confronted by inconvenient truths. A recent example being it’s treatment of the hate literature found in British Mosques. Focus on a couple of weak points and ignore the totality of the evidence.
It just shows that the pre-Hutton BBC mid-set is still going strong, a complete inability to admit serious mistakes have been made or that serious bias pervades it’s output.
.
.
.
I would bet that the findings of the HR study are pretty close to the Balen report. Could this be, by any chance the reason we can’t see it? No smoking gun, but masses of evidence of bias.
The BBC’s bias against israel is ingrained – it makes no effort to conceal its hatred.
Take the simple example of the brief descriptions given in “Country Profiles”. Each country is described in summary. However, the reader will find that there is no such country as “Israel” any more. In the BBC world, this has been replaced by “Israel/Palestinian areas”. In the text, the BBC loses no opportunity to use the word “occupation”.
Contrast this with its summary description of Cyprus. Despite Northern Cyprus having been invaded and occupied by Muslim Turkey since 1974, you will find not one mention of the word “occupation” there. All it says is that Turkey has “controlled” the area.
A stark and revealing contrast which shows perfectly the bias inbuilt into the BBC mind.
“Is the BBC view on British soldiers killed by the Taliban in Afghanistan or Shia gangs in Iraq is the same?”
The BBC tend to say that ‘the British say they killed xxx Taliban’ whilst they then report that ‘the Taliban killed 100 ANA soldiers today’ without the usual quote marks or sneers or implications that the report is in fact untrue…..
Taliban never claim or say x, it is always accepted at face value no matter how wrong, untrue or stupid. Given the claims of the Taliban so far they have killed around 45000 soldiers ie the same number that have actually served in Afghanistan!
BBC – Mr militant: we believe you, the rest of the world don’t.
OK, this is about a bombing in Lebanon, but the same rules apply. Contrast and compare the following references to the recent bombing:
“Car bomb targets US vehicle in Beirut” (Al Jazeera)
“The latest bomb attack in Lebanon, apparently aimed at an American embassy vehicle…” (Jim Muir – BBC News website)
So, while the Arabs are quite open about it, the BBC still coyly talks about an “apparent” attack.
I find the BBC’s anti-Israel bias to be absolutely clear. Honest Reporting’s latest offering only confirms what we all already know.
John Reith’s comments seem to me to be strident defence of the BBC’s anti-Israel bias, rather than a defence of the allegation of bias. I think that his dislike of Israel comes through clearly, just as the BBC’s does.
And, for the record, constantly calling Honest Reporting “disHonest Reporting” is just childish.
Reith is a classical example of the dupes who have fallen for the propaganda pushed from the old Soviet Union. No doubt he got this from some “journalism” instructor at university.
Everybody understood that the Israeli’s were in a fight for their lives again up until 1970s when the Soviets started pushing this crap thru its usual channels of misinformation(professors and journalists) to its useful idiots in the West.
The weak-minded leftists fall for propaganda easily, so that is why thugs attacking park strollers becomes a military operation, as does attacks on pizza parlors and weddings. Israel becomes “occupiers” by refusing to die quietly and fighting back.
It is disgusting.
John | 15.01.08 – 9:29 pm |
well, this seems to be the mentality that infects many in britain today: reject what doesn’t fit one’s preconceptions
how else could one explain the case last year (?) in britain where a non-white made racist remarks against a white, admitted it, IIRC, or at least certainly did not deny it, yet the magistrate refused to take it into consideration, effective saying the defendant didn’t mean what he said or didn’t know what he was saying or some such!
who needs a defense lawyer with such on the bench (unless you’re not from a minority, of course)
Just looking at this from a cold, logical perspective (as we should view all issues associated with BBC bias).
When Israel launch an attack in Gaza, it is with a standing army in uniform and sanctioned by the Israeli Government. When such actions occur, is it not almost impossible to conjur a decent headline that doesn’t refer to Israel. When we read “Israeli strike does XYZ” we get the impression that this was carried out officially, by the armed forces, authorised by the government.
With these connotations in mind, is it not less applicable to refer to Palestine when some Hamas militants take it upon themselves to fire rockets accross the border? In which case the sort of results seen in this study are to be expected.
Now the second paragraph is highly subjective*. However, the assumption here is that these results *CAN ONLY* be explained by BBC bias against Israel.
Is that neccessarily a prudent conclusion? Is this really a good metric with which to measure BBC bias?
*Due to the inevitable jumping to conclusions, I need to point out that I’m not actually venturing an opinion about referring to Palestine in headlines
John Reith, you are dead wrong in this case:
“John Reith:
Abandon Ship! | 15.01.08 – 10:43 am
This was not a Palestinian attack on Israel, nor on civilians.
It was an exchange of fire between Palestinians and two Israeli soldiers from an occupying army in the West Bank.”
An outright lie. These men were NOT in the line of duty, but rather HIKING as CIVILIANS. The only reason they were carrying weapons, which incidentally probably saved the life of the third hiker, was because it is dangerous territory. These were in no way soldiers of an occupying army on duty, neither were they in the midst of any type of military operation.
Furthermore, numerous Israeli news sources reported that the Palestinians were lying in wait and attacked the hikers without warning, with the intent of murdering them. Islamic Jihad and Al Aqsa Martyrs’ brigades both took responsibility for the attack.
Yediot Acharonot reported the following (http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3487782,00.html):
Cpl. Ahikam Amihai (20) and Sgt. David Ruben (21), both residents of the neighboring settlement of Kiryat Arba, were hiking through the Telem Creek area with an unnamed female companion when a group of four Palestinians drove up towards them and opened fire…
Eli Rosenberg, a volunteer with the regional MDA rescue services told Ynet that the third hiker was crying hysterically when the search party reached the scene after a 1.5 mile walk from the central path.
“She said they had been walking near the creek and noticed a car driving back and forth near them several times. At some point the car left the path and began driving towards them, as its occupants pulled out their weapons,” said Rosenberg.”
Got that Reith? A crying, hysterical female hiker said they were hiking and a vehicle drove back and forth near them several times, then pulled up and started firing at them. Does this sound like a military operation which resulted in a “clash” with opposing forces, or the victim of deliberate, attempted murder? Murder for political purposes, perhaps, but nonetheless, murder of civilians—the very definition of terrorism. The headline “West Bank Clash Leaves Three Dead”, which implies perhaps that an Israeli military operation was underway, was discovered by Palestinian forces and led to an ensuing clash, is utterly misleading. Here’s the Debka.com report: “Three hikers, Pvt Ahikam Amihai, 20 and Sgt. David Rubin, 21, from Kiryat Arba and an Israeli girl, were stalked by a group of armed Palestinians who attacked them in a wadi northwest of Hebron Friday afternoon, Dec. 8. The girl ran away and raised the alarm. The two hikers, who were armed, fired back, killing one of the Palestinians and seriously wounding a second, after they themselves were injured. The surviving Palestinian gunmen shot their victims dead as they lay wounded and stole their weapons. Palestinian Jihad Islami and two factions of Fatah-al Aqsa Aqsa Brigades Brigades claimed their men were responsible. ”
The Palestinian attackers shot their victims dead as they lay wounded. They stalked the hikers. Two groups took responsibility for the deliberate, pre-medidated attack on civilians. And here, the Jerusalem Post described the frenzied attempt of various Palestinian militant factions to take credit for the killings.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?c=JPArticle&cid=1198517247197&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
But that’s okay, when someone left a crude, home-made bomb in a car that was defused in Picadilly Circus several months ago the BBC liberally referred to the “terrorist” threat. But when Jewish civilians in Israel or the West Bank are targeted for murder, it’s a “clash” of forces, with no assignment of blame.
“DisHR hold the view that this was a ‘terrorist’ incident. Many other s will disagree, holding that attacks on armed IDF men in the West Bank are acts of legitimate ‘resistance’. The BBC neither endorses one view or the other. It seems to me that DisHR is inviting the BBC to endorse the ‘legitimacy’ of Israel’s occupation… which is not the same thing as being impartial or unbiased.”
So because, in your opinion, the BBC considers Israel’s “occupation” “illegitimate”, it is therefore okay to consider hikers “armed combatants on a military mission” instead of “civilians enjoying a day hike”? I don’t understand—is the murder of civilian settlers legitimate? What are you saying? Honest Reporting is making no invitation to consider the “occupation” “legitimate”—it is simply pointing out that the BBC, by not distinguishing between attacker and victim, appears to consider Jewish civilians in the occupied territories legitimate targets for murder. There’s a big difference between that and inviting the BBC to consider the occupation “legitimate”. Your blindness to that distinction simply reveals your distorted sense of morality.
Mr Reith, the bias is there in the headlines which I pointed out in my earlier post in a previous thread, you might be able to give one or two examples which you did here to try to divert attention, but you can not escape the fact that the report as a whole is spot on and exposes the BBC bias to a devastating degree.
I just want fact based reporting with headlines that are consistant for both sides, is that too much to ask from the BBC?
Should I have expected to see a headline as follows:
“Palestinian sniper in Gaze kills Ecudorian in Israel”
Rather than burying that in the Israeli raid in Gaza story?
Also I am not sure that the BBC can safely say that Sderot was not targetted in several months.
Is there a human interest in talking about a combatant who is the son of a leading terrorist being killed. Was it required to mention the botched (incompetent Israel again) assassination attempt? My human interest would not be in a dead terrorist but a 20 year old Ecudorian who was working in a field, that is the human interest that the BBC should focus in because he is a innocent in the classic sense of teh word!
Simon
Excellent analysis of the “clash”, better known to “many” as “terrorist murder”. You provide the detail that I haven’t had time to look for. I think Reith must try and answer the points you raise, and why the BBC thinks it was justified to use the “clash” description in light of the details of the attack. We all know (even Reith) that “clash” would not have been used if one of the clashees was not Israeli.
I also thought Simons comments were excellent and deserve a response.
Wow, Mr Rieth is ominously quiet…………..maybe because the pangs of conscientiousness are finally setting into his anti Israel mind.
MattLondon | 15.01.08 – 5:43 pm
No one has taking issue with MattLoondon’s general statements, so I will.
Israel has been a brutal occupying force
As occupiers go Israel has been fairly benign. Certainly compared with French occupatin of Algeria, Russian occupation of Chechnia, Ugandan occupation of parts of Congo, Chinese occupation of Tibet, etc.
The territories enjoyed a considerable increase in all areas of quality of life from 1976 until Oslo. Then corruption, mismanagement and support for war by the Palestinian Authority began to cut back on gains. The 1st and the continuing 2nd Intifada only further reduced Palestinian freedom and quality of life. As a general rule conducting a long war and losing it will always correlate with negative experiences on the losing side.
in much of what was called Palestine
This issue has been brought up time and time again on this blog. Arabs from the P.A. will do just about anything to move to the Israeli side of what was called Palestine and Israel is hardly responsible for what goes on in the Jordan side of what was called Palestine.
and has cynically undermined the Palestinian Authority and its attempt to govern.
The Palestinian Authority didn’t need undermining by Israel. Its corruption, cronyism, active and passive support for war and failure to deliver on any of its promises to Israel, the Quartet and its own people did all the undermining that was necessary.
Although clear lines are hard to draw, the distinction between terrorist and resistance fighter is not as obvious or absolute to me as to you.
Is a terrorist sitting on a toilet still a terrorist or only when attempting to kill Jews? Does it matter if the Jews are on a hike near Hebron, in a restaurant in Haifa or in a synagogue in Istanbul? On a scale between terrorism and resistance where does killing political opponents fall? Killing accused collaborators? Killing daughters for dishonouring the family? Killing Christians for not being Muslims? Killing homosexuals for …? Does murder have a place on your moral equivalence scale?
British soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq are operating in support of and at the invitation of governments which have some degree of legitimacy and are – I think – recognised by the UN. The Taliban and the Shia militias are attempting to overthrow those governments.
Actually the British aided the Americans in overthrowing the internationally recognised Taliban and Saddam Hussein governments and then replaced them with ‘more acceptable’ governments. No one ‘invited’ them to do it, least of all the governments or the people.
As if to illustrate Honest Reporting’s point, today’s BBC headline blares out,
Israel kills Islamic Jihad leader
Like the one during the Lebanon War:
Israel kills Lebanese Civilians
That one was quickly stealth edited to something a bit more balanced. Bias was a bit too obvious and so they moderated it.
Publish the Balen Report
deegee | 16.01.08 – 10:41 am |
Is a terrorist sitting on a toilet still a terrorist […]?
I’d say yes, but by the same token soldiers on a day off are still soldiers, dressed in civies and hiking or not. The only ‘innocent’ in this was the girl. You must remember that those who excuse the Pally’s see them as heroic fighters against oppression, just like the French Resistance. Would you complain if two off duty Jerries had been killed by the French. No. Unfortunately for the apologists the situation is, in reality, not the same.
AAT, did the killers know the Israelis were soldiers? Probably not or otherwise they may have thought twice about attacking them, cowards that they are.
Simon | 16.01.08 – 5:57 am
Abandon Ship! | 16.01.08 – 9:25 am
deegee | 16.01.08 – 10:41 am
is the murder of civilian settlers legitimate?
Many Palestinians believe it is. They notice that the settlers have guns and generally regard them as brigands/pirates or armed land thieves.
The settlers themselves would obviously not. They believe that they have a right to settle in Samaria because their forebears were among those who lived there some 1800 years ago.
Those who are neither settlers nor Palestinians will take a variety of views, often somewhere between these two poles. Tom Paulin, as we know, takes a ‘one settler one bullet line’ on settlers from Brooklyn, but may take a softer line on settlers originating elsewhere.
Countless others would view the settlers’ claim as something of a stretch. An Englishman who could prove descent from Vikings, for instance, wouldn’t expect a sympathetic hearing if he turned up in Norway, armed to the teeth, and demanding his own fjord.
Others, by contrast, might choose to emphasize the historical continuity of Jewish presence in the area of Hebron and regard the principle of settlement there as warranting some sympathy.
So there are a variety of views on this • as on every other vexed question in the region. It isn’t the BBC’s job to pronounce upon which is right, but to ensure that all significant points of view are reflected in its coverage • though not necessarily given equal time or weight.
So because, in your opinion, the BBC considers Israel’s “occupation” “illegitimate”
I said nothing of the kind. What I said was : ‘…the BBC neither endorses one view or the other…’
the “clash”, better known to “many” as “terrorist murder”
As MattLondon implies, there is a distinction to be made between the acts of resistance fighters and those of terrorists, though it’s not always as clear as we’d like it to be. You don’t do the cause of thoughtful moral discernment any favours by acting as if there were no distinction at all. It is because people like you keep devaluing it that the BBC has had to limit the use of the word ‘terrorist.’
As occupiers go Israel has been fairly benign. Certainly compared with… Russian occupation of Chechnya, Ugandan occupation of parts of Congo, Chinese occupation of Tibet…
Not setting the bar very high, are you? As beneficiaries of the social and moral legacy of Western civilization, I think Israel can fairly be held to a higher standard, don’t you? I suspect that if anyone non-Jewish had compared the IDF to the Ugandans in Congo you’d be squealing about anti-Semitism by now.
But you are right in so far as Israel only killed a mere 130 or so innocent civilians last year protecting itself from the ‘existential threat’ of Palestinian terrorism. How long this ‘existential threat’ rhetoric will hold up as a justification of the occupation now that we’re seeing as many Israelis killed in the lawless Angola diamond strip as by Pallies in Israel, I don’t know.
But the downside (for those of your persuasion) of things like DisHonestReporting is that it encourages the Palestinians to try their hand at the same thing. They have begun to ask why Israel’s case tends to be represented in the Western media by clean-cut men in suits, often speaking perfect English with trace American, Australian or South African accents, while the Palestinian case is represented by foam-flecked, ranting religious nutters with beards.
They have a point. There are plenty of non-bearded, Harvard or Cornell-educated, soft-spoken Palestinians. Quite a few at St Anthony’s College, Oxford. The electronicIntifada crowd are now asking why they’re not on the telly, and why Israel’s Baruch Goldstein types are kept out of frame. Of course, some of their critiques are as barking as DisHonestReporting’s: arguing, for instance, that merely by using the word ‘Israel’, the BBC is demonstrating a bias in favour of ‘Israel’s right to exist’. The truly ‘impartial’ term, they claim, would be ‘Zionist entity’.
What should a well-meaning, honest broadcaster trying to be impartial do?
So John Reid you are not prepared to even accept that you should name Hamas or Islamic Jihad or Fatah when reporting events, but always Israel, why?
I would think that it would be factual reporting to detail who did what, don’t you agree?
Dear Mr Reith,
I have read through your comments with interest. One question if I may. In your view, what things would Israel need to do to end the conflict completely? (say, bullet points) Or is it now unable to do so?
Thanks.
John Reith: “It is because people like you keep devaluing it that the BBC has had to limit the use of the word ‘terrorist.’ ”
Using a term accurately does not devalue it: As a matter of UK law Hamas is a terrorist group (under the Terrorism Act 2000). This is a fact, determined by the UK Government, and the BBC should report facts.
Despite John Reith’s long post above, he simply does not address Honest Reporting’s conclusions. He calls them “DisHonest” and that seems to be his best point. His attempt to pick one particular story cited in HR’s report as an example of them being dishonest has been conclusively refuted by posters above; John Reith ignores this and just moves onto a general post with his thoughts about Israel – which, I think, can be taken to be further evidence of the BBC’s anti-Israel bias.
The many John Reiths
“Israel only killed a mere 130 or so innocent civilians last year protecting itself from the ‘existential threat’ of Palestinian terrorism”
Your sarcasm is in poor taste but leaving that to one side consider this scenario…
Wales is ticked off by the English occupation and attacks and kills English people in Wales, not just security and armed forces but anyone settling there or even on many occasions visitors.
In order to further their aims they let off bombs in England including suicide bombers going into restaurants, buses and the like.
To stop this England stricly monitors the border and fortifies Offa’s Dyke to keep out these bombers and gunmen.
The Welsh start firing off rockets into England every day, often several rockets.
They can fire wherever but Bristol is continually targetted for being near Wales and a decent sized place.
The rockets land indiscriminately and have no regard to specified targets.
The English government and armed forces want to take action against the terrorists but the Welsh are not wearing uniform they look like civilians they fire from urban areas particularly liking schools and hospitals.
The Welsh use children and women to pick up rockets and arms and to distract the English forces.
The John Reiths’ answer is to do absolutely nothing, just accept the terror to life and property.
It is not possible to be 100% certain of getting those responsible and only those responsible so better just to leave it.
Thankfully the John Reiths were not in charge of our country in World War Two or we would all be speaking German now.
JR | 16.01.08 – 2:44 pm
As a matter of UK law Hamas is a terrorist group (under the Terrorism Act 2000). This is a fact, determined by the UK Government, and the BBC should report facts.
As is so often the case with the ‘facts’ bandied about on this site, your ‘fact’ isn’t a fact, it’s a falsehood.
Hamas is not proscribed under the Terrorism Act. What is proscribed are the ‘Hamas Izz al-Din al-Qassem Brigades’ • sometimes called the ‘military wing’ of Hamas.
In order to avoid confusion, the Government added an explanatory note to its announcement of proscribed organizations •
The Hamas terrorist apparatus is separate from the overt organisation which operates a large welfare infrastructure in the Middle East, running charitable, health and educational projects. The terrorist apparatus operates under the name the Izz al- Din al-Qassem (IDQ) Brigades.
(TERRORISM ACT 2000 (PROSCRIBED ORGANISATIONS)
(AMENDMENT) ORDER 2001) EXPLANATORY NOTE.
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/security/terrorism-and-the-law/terrorism-act/proscribed-groups
http://www.tamilnation.org/intframe/uk/010228order.htm#Home%20Office%20News%20Release
I also think that John Reith shows his ignorance of the history of Israel, the Jews were still living there, but under the occupation of the Roman Empire, the Byzantiums and then Islam.
Next thing he will tell us that Palestine existed as a nation.
“The Hamas terrorist apparatus is separate from the overt organisation which operates a large welfare infrastructure in the Middle East, running charitable, health and educational projects. The terrorist apparatus operates under the name the Izz al- Din al-Qassem (IDQ) Brigades.”
I love that, they operate under the name of…
So lets put it in plain English, “the Hamas terrorist organisation operates under the name of …”
But we can’t blame the BBC for that, only the FO.
John Reith | 16.01.08 – 12:46 pm |
It isn’t the BBC’s job to pronounce upon which is right, but to ensure that all significant points of view are reflected in its coverage • though not necessarily given equal time or weight.
So today it is Comedy J. Reith. I’m glad I’m wearing my corset ‘cos when I read that my sides nearly split. You card.
What should a well-meaning, honest broadcaster trying to be impartial do?
Who are we talking about here? It can’t be the BBC because they are neither well-meaning nor honest.
“What should a well-meaning, honest broadcaster trying to be impartial do?”
Why don’t you ask one?
What should a well-meaning, honest broadcaster trying to be impartial do?
John Reith | 16.01.08 – 12:46 pm | #
1) Learn Jewish history before 1967 and 1948.
2) Replace Jeremy Bowen.
3) Admit Islam is a threat to the west and connect it with the fundamental cause of the conflict in the Middle East.
4) Understand the Palestinian propaganda machine and never accept it as fact.
5) Share your feelings about Jews with us.
—————————————————–
“I think Israel can fairly be held to a higher standard, don’t you? ”
Is this why you excuse the Palestinians?
” ‘existential threat’ ”
Why the quotes? Are you doubting the Hamas charter etc?
“But the downside (for those of your persuasion) of things like DisHonestReporting is that it encourages the Palestinians to try their hand at the same thing……………………”
They’re already masters of it. Can you really be unaware of Palestinian propaganda, Pallywood etc. ?
Also, Mark Regev is certainly a better spokesperson than previous ones, and a good thing too..
Why does the BBC frequently preface Israel’s explanation for its actions with ‘Israel says’ before recounting the reason they give? It’s like a sneer, and implies you doubt obvious acts of retaliation, and insinuates that you suspect they’re really acts of aggression. Why does the BBC repeat verbatim quotes from Hamas people more frequently than any from Israelis.
This ‘distancing’ is part of the many word manipulations that reveal the underlying antipathy you refuse to acknowledge.
The BBC on Israel.
Don’t forget the BBC’s totally biased, pro-Islam, anti-British, anti-Israeli history series, (3 parts), ‘Clash of the Worlds’. This repeated at 8 pm. (GMT) next Monday, 21 January, on BBC 4 TV.
In the BBC’s OWN description – with no words left out: “Series exploring the history of Muslim-Western relations. Decisions made by the British rulers of Palestine ninety years ago have wreaked damage that continues to this day.”
Even the intonation of the narrators in this BBC series (including John Sessions) is sneering of Britain’s role. The whole tone of voice, as well as the script, is totally sympthetic to Arabs, and hostile to Britain’s role. It is the apogee of the BBC’s multiculturalist, anti-British propaganda. It is insulting to British TV license-payers. And it is more BBC anti-Israeli propaganda.
This view of ‘Palestine’ imbues the BBC today. A version of Part 3 is available here:-
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-904260387446539297&hl=en
“Decisions made by the British rulers of Palestine ninety years ago have wreaked damage that continues to this day.”
Iyt has to be pointed out that Britain had a role in the Middle East thrust upon her bay the collapse of the Ottoman Empire,Germany’s ally,after 1918.
No European nation had the manpower,money or the will to do other than stick a plaster on the wound and hope for the best.
The BBC will have archive footage of 1914-18,it should be compulsory viewing for all would be makers of documentaries about the Middle East.
Sue | 16.01.08 – 5:00 pm
Why does the BBC frequently preface Israel’s explanation for its actions with ‘Israel says’ before recounting the reason they give?
Because that is a straight way to report. ‘Israel claims’ suggests that you have doubts about what they’re saying is true. ‘Israel admits’ suggests Israel’s done something shameful. ‘Israel says…’ is absolutely neutral.
The fact that you complain about even that suggests you are either paranoid or just grubbing around for any dirt with which to smear the BBC.
John Reith/ 5.26 pm
You twisted my question. Of course I would not prefer you to use ‘admits’ or ‘claims.’ I want you to quote verbatim as you do with Hamas spokespeople.
I’m not sure you got the point.
Yes I do complain about ‘even that’ because these subtle things are more revealing than you are willing to admit. Now I would like you to kindly answer my other questions.
John Reith/ 5.26 pm
Then we should now alway’s see ‘Hamas says’ whenever the Hamas narrative is reported?
If so it will be a great improvement, the point Sue was making prior to your twisting of it.
So you say, John Reith so you say.
But , if you’re interested, sources as diverse as Catullus and Ira Gershwin show that an apparently neutral ‘(s)he said’ can be used precisely to cast doubt on what is being said.
The context is all. The common BBC trick, as discussed on this blog a few months back is to contrast the ‘feelings’ of the favoured group (to which the journalist apparently has unerring access) with what the baddies merely ‘say’. The example quoted on this blog went something like ‘The Americans say the installation will be defensive but the Russians clearly feel humiliated’ (or cheesed off or something). I remember you characterised this locution as very sloppy journalism and wouldn’t defend it. And yet you now dismiss Sue’s point out of hand. Could it be that you are not arguing in good faith? I’m shocked, shocked….
The Gershwin song is ‘It ain’t necessarily so’. Google the lyrics.
“The fact that you complain about even that suggests you are either paranoid or just grubbing around for any dirt with which to smear the BBC.
John Reith | 16.01.08 – 5:26 pm | # ”
One can imagine Wraith working on the complaints counter at M&S.I envision him/her looking like John Cleese.