The BBC coverage of Israel comes under scrutiny here.
Honest Reporting?
Bookmark the permalink.
Search Biased BBC
Recent Comments
- Deborah Nov 22, 23:08
Weekend 23rd November 2024
Lefty, I know the green blob may have changed to ‘climate change’ to cover all eventualities but people still know… - BigBrotherCorporation Nov 22, 22:43
Weekend 23rd November 2024
I thought the BBC were giving X the cold shoulder, because of Musk supporting Trump? - Guest Who Nov 22, 22:21
Weekend 23rd November 2024
https://x.com/bbcnews/status/1860028485890105443?s=61 Farming tax row – BBC Verify on which figures are more reliable and why Once folk have stopped laughing…… - Fedup2 Nov 22, 22:09
Weekend 23rd November 2024
Outrageous – BBC. Reports that the sentencing of Donald trump – an already convicted Felon – for a white collar… - atlas_shrugged Nov 22, 21:16
Midweek 20th November 2024
The French want to kick the British border check out of Calais so that they can just send the invaders… - Lefty Wright Nov 22, 21:12
Weekend 23rd November 2024
Flotsam Don’t tell anyone but we don’t refer to global warming any more. in New Speak we have to refer… - Fedup2 Nov 22, 21:09
Midweek 20th November 2024
Really vexed . The truth about Rachel Reeves insolvent with the Bank of England is coming out now ….. but… - Flotsam Nov 22, 20:50
Weekend 23rd November 2024
It’s snowing, feezing cold and frosty…………must be global warming
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
I note that the BBC made the Editors comment in the Daily Mail today, the DM attacked the BBC for it’s transparent attempt to spin the Hain story, but could I find mention of this on the BBC’s editors link to what the papers say about the BBC?, could I heck.
John Reith:
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.
Now that’s what I call an honest framing of the debate: take your best shot at those awful Jews (preface it by declaring ‘Many Palestinians believe’ of course); then present the case for Israel in a way which invites derision.
You also noted that the case for the Palestinians is represented in the Western media by “foam-flecked, ranting religious nutters with beards”.
Now that sounds like a pretty fair description of Hamas’s leadership to me.
Sue | 16.01.08 – 5:57 pm
I am sorry I misunderstood your point.
I have just done a search with the terms ‘Hamas spokesman’ and another with ‘Israel says’.
Loads of stories came up under both.
I haven’t time to read them all, but I sampled several stories from each search.
In each and every case – from both sets of results – there was a mixture of reported speech and direct quotation.
If you have any evidence of a tendency to quote one directly but not the other – please supply links.
Dear John Reith,
Thank you for your response. I disagree wholeheartedly. Let me explain.
You said: “I think Israel can fairly be held to a higher standard, don’t you? ”
Actually, with respect to news reporting, Israel should be held to the identical standard of every other country in the world. And all those other countries, (including Saudi Arabia, Uganda, Denmark etc.) should be held to the same standard. To do otherwise is to be partial. To admit that you believe Israel should be held to a higher standard than other countries is to admit partiality, because it means the BBC would treat Israel more harshly than other countries in its reporting. Isn’t that the definition of partiality?
The logical conclusion of what you suggest is that if an Israeli or group of Israelis were to commit a crime against a civilian of another country, the reporting of this ought to reflect a more judgmental tone (“Israel can be fairly held to a higher standard”) than the reporting of a crime against a civilian by a Palestinian or group of Palestinians. After all, the “Israelis ought to be held to a higher standard.” So those 250,000 or so settlers, including their children, are more deserving of crime or acts of terror against them than others. Let me recount a story. A few years ago armed Palestinians entered a settlement in the West Bank, broke into a home, machine gunned a 2 year old and a 5 year old asleep in their beds and killed the parents. Where would you draw the line at “holding Israelis to a higher standard”? Is it reasonable to not dispute the point of view of “many Palestinians” that the children in this case can be regarded as “brigands/pirates or armed land thieves”? Many Palestinians would consider this “legitimate resistance” as well, and endorse the creation of shrines to the “martyr” who committed the act. Is it reasonable for the BBC to ignore the absurdity and moral decrepitude of that argument in the tone of its reporting? What about the parents asleep at home? Are they brigands who “deserve” to be murdered? Again, where do you draw the line?
Moreover, your comment that “Israelis should fairly be held to a higher standard” smacks of a kind of paternalistic racism against those “incapable of making correct moral decisions because they lack a Western heritage in their history” and are therefore “excused” of their bad behaviour, or at least treated with kid gloves. Does that mean that a Sephardic Jewish soldier in Israel, who heralds from the Arab world ,who accidentally kill civilians in a raid on a Palestinian suicide bomb factory ought also to be treated less judgmentally than an Ashkenazi Jewish soldier? Isn’t that absurd?
You must see the folly of your argument. Taking it to its logical conclusions leads to absurd and dangerous distinctions. That’s why, from a legal as well as moral standpoint, the place to draw the line should be the same across all cultures. News organizations should make no distinction or hold no side to a higher standard with respect to attacks on those not acting in an official capacity as enemy soldiers. Even during World War 2 you would be hard-pressed to find examples of Jewish partisans deliberately attacking German civilians, even ones in the Sudetenland where by some they might be referred to as “brigands and land thieves”. (And the lot of these partisans, by any objective standard, was monumentally worse than that of the Palestinians.) There were no bombs in cafes, shootings on buses, etc. And even among the most militant partisans, there was a strict code that if an operation against the German military were to involve serious loss of civilian life it should not be undertaken. That is amazing. These were people under the jackboot of Hitler’s tyranny. But they adhered to a noble moral code because they knew that it is inherently evil to deliberately target civilians, regardless of how horrible their situation. That the BBC turns a blind eye to that underlying moral conviction, and, in fact, advocates for holding those who, as a matter of policy, try to abide by that conviction, to a higher standard than those who, as a matter of policy (as evidenced in the charter of Hamas and the manifestos of the other Palestinian militant “resistance” organizations) most certainly and demonstrably do not abide by that conviction, seems to be an example of moral inversion of the highest order, and certainly does no favors for those who argue that BBC reporting is impartial.
John Reith
I appreciate your efforts, One example was yesterday at
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7188807.stm
It is one of the deadliest days of violence in Gaza in months. Israel launches frequent raids which it says are aimed at preventing rocket fire.
That is phrased as though you doubt Israel’ s reason for launching raids. It implies you suspect they do it just because they hate the Palestinians. Which is what you do seem to think.
———————-
“This is one of the results of the Bush visit. He encouraged the Israelis to kill our people,” said Mr Zahar as he viewed in a Gaza hospital the body of his son Hussam.
This not only uses a direct quote, but ‘personalises’ Hamas hardliner Mr Zahar, and gratuitously asks for sympathy by mentioning his dead son.
————————
He vowed Hamas would respond “in the appropriate way”.
and
“We will defend ourselves by all means,” he said.
These could easily have been reported in third person as they would have been if the writer was not so sympathetic.
——————————–
Mr Abbas condemned Israel’s actions as “a massacre, a slaughter” and warned that they would not bring peace.
This time quotes are justified as they show Mr Abbas in his true light. Not that this was the Beeb’s intention
——————————————-
“The shooting… demonstrates the necessity of the defensive measures the military is carrying out with pinpoint operations,” said Israeli military spokeswoman Avital Leibovich.
Here I admit you have used a direct quote, but it comes only in the last section devoted to the murder of The 20-year-old Ecuadorian kibbutz volunteer Carlos Chavez who the BBC does not even name.
———————————————————-
No doubt you will find something wrong with the above, or you will put it down to paranoia, but things that may seem trivial to you do have a cumulatively damaging effect.
There are other problems with that report which I don’t want to be diverted by, and I regret being involved with this sort of discussion while the more important fundamental issue, misunderstanding of, and bias against Israel, is not addressed.
Simon, I totally agree with your excellent post, I think it was a Guardian columnist who said that Israel was held to a higher standard of behaviour because they were a first world country, I thought that was wrong then and just as wrong now, every country should be held to the same standards, all people and all religions.
JR has stated his side on more then one occasion.
MEMRI, which only translates Middle East media is a biased pro-Israel Zionist fanatic fringe group. In fact MEMRI should not be listened to even if it means saving British lives as in case of the antisemitic Saudi cleric promoting genocide 1 year before 7/7.
Yet electronicintifada is a “crowd”, that should be listened to and given a voice.
Baruch Goldstein terrorist act was reported on by all the media, most of all Israeli media.
He was denounced and repudiated by everyone.
A sizable department for prevention of Jewish Terror acts exists within Shin Bet.
It is now clear that BBC is filled with condescending racists that view Arabs and Muslims as sub-humans, not to be held accountable for their acts.
JR,
“What should a well-meaning, honest broadcaster trying to be impartial do?”
It should report the facts and not use any excuse to defame Israel, unrelated to the conflict/occupation:
BBC Headline News: 70% of Israelis are racists
Israelis always “kill” Palestinians.
Yet Israelis are always “killed” (passive), as if by an act of nature.
Would you like major American news networks to start proclaiming all Brits to be racists because of the continual “occupation” of Northern Ireland?
Britain was responsible for 2 million deaths (mostly starvation) of Irish over the 19th century.
But non of it is relevant to what Britain is today. And anyone using agenda driven polls to suggest 70% of Britons are racists would be considered a fool!
JR, what BBC is doing with its hate propaganda against Israel
you are doing is turning someone ready to fight for an end to occupation and peace, like me, to a person that has to be preoccupied with countering your hate speech.
Incitement to violence is seldom: “Go and beat that person up!”, it is usually: “That person is evil beyond repair, we should do something about it!”.
That is what BBC is doing with Israel.
If you have any evidence of a tendency to quote one directly but not the other – please supply links.
John Reith | 16.01.08 – 6:38 pm
How about this, it’s an example of the BBC not directly quoting hamas to obfuscate their responsibility:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7188807.stm
You’ll also note that while you like to call Arab terrorism “military action” your bosses call Israel military action “violence:
The raid began when an Israeli undercover army unit targeted a house in the Zeitoun area used to launch rockets at Israel, but the Israelis were spotted by Palestinian gunmen who opened fire.
An Israeli army spokeswoman said the troops shot at a car carrying armed Palestinians during the operation and opened fire at another group of armed men.
The Jerusalem Post makes it clear that Hamas itself admits the house was used to launch rockets:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1200308089888&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
The Egoz undercover unit moved first into the Zeitoun area east of Gaza City, striking a house used by Palestinian terrorists to launch rockets, Hamas security said. Palestinian gunmen discovered the soldiers, shot at them and an exchange of fire broke out, Hamas said. IDF tanks, bulldozers and helicopters then entered the area, firing at the terrorists, Hamas said.
Today’s news provides us with a glaring example of the BBC manipulating news to Hamas’s advantage. I’ve already formally complained, perhaps Mr. Reith would like to respond?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middl…ast/
7192260.stm
Hamas’s armed wing claimed responsibility for a heavy rocket barrage aimed at the Israeli town of Sderot on Wednesday, but there were no reports of injuries.
No reports from Hamas perhaps but plenty of reports if only they had the will.
4 hurt in Sderot rocket barrage
Tough day in the south: Palestinian terrorists fire rockets at Sderot Tuesday afternoon, at least four people reportedly wounded, including 5-year-old girl; for first time in months, Hamas claims responsibility for rocket barrage
At least four people were wounded, including a 5-year-old girl, in a rocket barrage on the southern town of Sderot Tuesday afternoon. At least 18 Qassams were fired at Sderot since the afternoon hours, with four rockets landing in town.
Woman and 7-year old girl wounded by Kassam shrapnel in Sderot
Four Kassam rockets landed in Sderot Tuesday evening, two of them scoring direct hits on houses in the town.
A young seven-year old girl was wounded by shrapnel from a Kassam rocket that hit a house in Sderot, Tuesday evening.
In a nearby house, a woman was wounded by shrapnel from a different rocket.
A spokeswoman from the Sderot Media Center told The Jerusalem Post that the two casualties were driven to Ashkelon Hospital by ambulance.
Sderot resident evacuated to hospital
“Decisions made by the British rulers of Palestine ninety years ago have wreaked damage that continues to this day.”
“The whole tone of voice, as well as the script, is totally sympthetic to Arabs, and hostile to Britain’s role.”
I see so BBC is washing what it perceives as Britain’s dirty laundry, over Israel’s heads:
O, Heavenly Father, We, the British, have sinned. Please, punish our evil creation – Israel, may it rot in hell for eternity!
Let me wash your guilt, JR. Israel was created by Jewish refugees from European and Arab countries (about 90%) and Jewish residents of Palestine (about 10%).
There was nothing Britain could do. They simply didn’t have anywhere else to go without being slaughtered.
“Britain was responsible for 2 million deaths (mostly starvation) of Irish over the 19th century.”
How so? That the potato crops failed and there was tragically mass starvation is true,but how was Britain responsible?
Re.
dave t:
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.
Think about that for a mo, Dave.
There are some practical difficulties in establishing how many Taleban have been killed in one incident. Unless a correspondent crawls over the battlefield and counts them. On the other hand the British/ Nato/ANA forces tend to keep records of fatalities.
I have never heard it reported that ‘The Taleban have killed xxx many soldiers’ unless this was confirmed by Nato etc.
‘without the usual quote marks or sneers or implications that the report is in fact untrue’ – perhaps this is the way you percieve it,bizaree in my opinion. Could it be that the BBC cant establish the truth, but can telll you what the sides involved claim?
John Reith | 16.01.08 – 12:46 pm
It is because people like you keep devaluing it that the BBC has had to limit the use of the word ‘terrorist.’
Give us a break, Reith. Are you really trying to tell us that the BBC gives a damn about what people who object to terrorists think? The BBC has practically excised the T-word from the English language because it doesn’t want to offend its terrorists friends. The Alan Johnston kidnapping showed the BBC in its true colours, perhaps like nothing else could. Shortly after his rescue from his kidnappers by Hamas, a breathless Johnston terminated his interview with the words, “I’m going to have breakfast with the Prime Minister,” namely, chief Gaza terrorist, Ismael Haniyeh of Hamas. When the interview was rebroadcast on the World Service a short while later, the bit about breakfast had been cut out. Even the terror-friendly BBC realised that was not an appropriate signal for an “impartial” broadcaster to send.
So to return to my point, the BBC shies away from the T-word because it simply will not highlight the atrocious nature of terrorist actions. And it goes a step further: it misquotes Israeli spokespeople, and others, turning their T-words into “militants”. This even goes against the BBC’s own dhimmi guidelines, which indicate that while the BBC should limit the use of the T-word, it should be used in quotes. It’s also dishonest, of course, and unprofessional.
You really have been showing your true colours here lately Reith. You say you don’t favour one side over the other in this conflict. That’s rubbish, and you know it.
AJukDD
This is precisely Dershowitz’s point. Though he is maligned by some of the very folks he cleared a legal path for in his lifelong fight for civil liberties, he points out again and again how Israel is held to a different standard. He has also repeatedly expressed his oppostion to the “occupation”, and marked a very clear path in his arguments on behalf of Israel. Unfortunately, to folks like John Reith, there is very little appreciation of nuance in the internal dialogue within the Jewish world. If you support Israel aggressively, as having a right to exist as a democratic state with a Jewish majority culture, based on a historical, cultural, emotional connection with the land combined with its function as a haven for 2000 years of persecution, you might as well be a settler on the West Bank who believes “it belongs to us because God said so.” Why else would he lump “folks of your ilk” together by saying they’ve debased the use of the word “terrorism.”? That he can’t distinguish between those who scream Palestinians who throw stones are terrorists and those who say, no, there is a line, and murdering innocent civilians for political purposes is terrorism, speaks volumes about his inability to navigate those nuances. I imagine he believes Peace Now is a “racist” Zionist organization because it supports the right of the Jews to a national homeland.
Could it be that the BBC cant establish the truth, but can telll you what the sides involved claim?
Joel | Homepage | 16.01.08 – 11:11 pm
If the BBC had any journalists worthy of the name, it would at least try to establish the truth in any conflict. Take the BBC’s distancing of itself from Israel, discussed on this thread. Endlessly BBC hacks will tell us, “Israel says the attack on Gaza was in response to Kassam rocket fire.” But the simple fact that these attacks target the terrorists who manufacture and fire these rockets and the leaders who order them to be fired seems to escape the hacks. Paralysed by their own bias, they can’t or wont put two and two together, if it means lending any credibility to the Israeli position. It’s beyond belief how low the BBC has sunk.
It steams my piss Sue that any criticism of Israel’s policies must be ‘anti-semitism’.
Maybe it’s about what they do, and nothing to do with their Jewishness.
Not that I’m expressing an opinion about what they do.
i did`nt know the irish famine killed 2 million.
“Maybe it’s about what they do,”
Yes, it’s got everything to do with what the Palestinian paramilitaries and their teeming hypocritical apologists do and believe.
Peter,
“How so? That the potato crops failed [in Ireland] and there was tragically mass starvation is true,but how was Britain responsible?”
In exactly the same manner BBC seems to think Israel is responsible for the dreadful state of the Palestinians.
If you ask, many Irish, including a coworker in my office, would tell you these figures.
If I were an American news network hateful towards the British, I would be parading IRA people on screens all day, occasionally adding a British Lefty with similar guilt ridden opinions. I would be posting all sorts of polls from dubious sources to prove how Brits are evil in all sorts of ways (racists, religious fanatics). I would be hiding anything good about Britain – for example the thriving economy, science and secular culture.
They would go to explain how the evil Brits were mismanaging the Irish farming to make the Catholics die.
I’ll send you links if you want, for example even this, although not very radical:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Potato_Famine_(1845-1849)
The case with Gaza is even worse, because Israelis absolutely have to be involved there. There is nothing Israel is gaining from the operations in Gaza except for reducing rocket fire.
In fact, many Israeli companies that were doing business with Gazan’s have gone bankrupt as a result of Hamas takeover.
Joel | 16.01.08 – 11:53 pm |
It steams my piss Sue that any criticism of Israel’s policies must be ‘anti-semitism’.
Maybe it’s about what they do, and nothing to do with their Jewishness.
No, actually. Speaking for myself, I have made it clear on several occasions that criticism of Israel is not anti-semitism by default. The main complaint is the dishonest demonization of Israel which is well known to inflame anti-semitism, both vocal and physically violent. And I am, as Mrs. Slocombe says, unanimous in that.
There is a huge difference between criticizing a given position or action of Israel and misrepresenting the situation at hand, or telling porkies outright (Jewish and Muslim dietary law pun unintended, but noted and allowed through nevertheless).
The original post for this thread aside, I have tried to focus my rants on specific instances of the BBC presenting things out of context, egregious examples of providing “balance” for an Israeli statement but not doing the same “balance” when it’s a Palestinian viewpoint, outright misrepresentation of a story, or just plain spewing of ignorant horseshit that wouldn’t happen had the trainee sub-editor done their homework or – more likely – not been previously indoctrinated into said ignorance.
I know I’m repeating myself ad nauseum now, but my position is that demonization of Israel (and, on occasion, the “Jewish Lobby” etc.) incites prejudice and physical violence against Jews. The BBC employees who do the bulk of reporting on Israeli/Palestinian issues often act as if in sympathy with one side, and do not make even the fraction of the effort to consider an alternative Israeli/Jewish viewpoint that they do for Palestinian/Muslim sensibilities. Not only that, but if Auntie hides behind the “It’s down to Social Cohesion, guv” defense when it comes to portraying Palestinian/Muslim viewpoints (which I get, up to a certain point), she sure as hell doesn’t give a damn about preventing outrage against Jews.
That’s me anyway. But hopefully you can understand the difference.
Joel,
Nobody said any criticism of Israel’s policies is “anti-Semitism.” Many supporters of Israel are among the most vocal critics of some of its policies. Just read Ha’aretz for a couple of weeks. The problem occurs when criticism of Israel’s policies devolves into questioning its right to national sovereignty to a degree and in a way that is not applied to other nations. And because Israel is also defined as a national home for the Jewish people, and has special historical and religious meaning for Jews worldwide, the questioning of the basic, inalienable right of Jews to live as a sovereign majority rather than at the mercy of/under the protection of other host nations as a minority hits an extremely raw nerve with Jews worldwide. Among other things, Israel is a central focus of the Jewish people, a focus of yearning thrice daily in prayers for two thousand years, a tradition passed on from generation to generation. That others would so callously dismiss that national yearning as so much whining, and question vocally whether there is even a need for a Jewish national home, quite understandably offends and hurts Jews worldwide. That said, when the Jewish state behaves badly, it needs to be castigated for that behavior in the manner that any other state would be. There are clearly internal mechanisms in the Israeli democratic state which provide for redress that don’t exist in tyrannies or totalitarian. Sometimes those mechanisms fail. Often they succeed. The Israeli supreme court does an admirable job of trying to balance the law and human rights with the rights of the country’s citizens to live in security, the first in the troika of rights in the U.S. Declaration of Independence, by the way, “Life.”
Simon,
Well said. I must have been angrily typing while you did your comment. Please accept my contribution as a supplement to your statement.
i don’t know if i read jr correctly, but was he really and truly saying that the bbc in its reporting should hold israel to a higher standard?
if so, could he please explain how this is to be accomplished while at the same time simply reporting events, and doing so impartially?
since when is it the role of journalists to hold people to standards, anyway? whose standards? yours? mine? theirs? ours? sounds like the beginning of another leftist self-contradiction in the making (by my standards, anyway…)
David,
Happy to.
Amimissingsomething,
Yes, that’s what he is saying. I suppose if one complained to the BBC about this the BBC would say comments on a blog don’t represent their policy. But it’s that very attitude, that underlies their reporting, that is the entire problem.
John Reith,
Presenting the argument that you have “no dog in this fight” (the Israeli-Palestinian conflict) doesn’t really reconcile with other comments you’ve made. For example, on behalf of the BBC you argue against the use of the word “terrorism” in the case of Palestinian attacks on Israeli civilians, and in general, because of the alleged misuse of the term by Israel’s supporters and others. Besides, as you state, “many Palestinians” see these attacks as acts of “resistance.” Nonetheless, the BBC used the term “terrorism” to describe the events of 7/7. Yet Al Jazeera expressly quoted Al-Qaeda leader Ayman Al Zawahiri (see link below) as saying that the 7/7 bombings were a result of British Occupation forces being in Iraq. By his rationale, 7/7 was also merely an act of resistance against an occupier. For the BBC to maintain impartiality it must apply the same standard to the terminology used to describe suicide bombings inside Israel “proper” (pre-1967 lines). For if “terrorism” is the term used to describe suicide bombings in London committed as a result of the occupation of Iraq by British soldiers (as a form of “resistance” by members of the “oppressed” Ummah in Iraq), then it must also be the term used to describe suicide bombings in Tel Aviv committed as a “result” of the “occupation” of the West Bank by Israeli soldiers (as a form of “resistance” by “oppressed” Palestinians). But it is not. During the second intifada, which saw the launching of hundreds of suicide bombings against Israeli civilians inside the Green Line, not once during a four year period did the BBC refer to these suicide bombings , without attribution, as acts of “terror.” That’s called not being impartial, plain and simple.
Here is the link to Zawahiri’s quote:
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/081F5547-A5A6-429B-A53D-080568E5
2A5A.htm: ‘ He claimed responsibility for London’s July attacks saying that the
British policy in Iraq and Palestine, and its hostility to Islam,
justified what happened in London
John Reith,
On this website, and on this subject you face a barrage of opposition. You are a lone voice defending the noble position of the BBC. In real life this may not be so. You are surrounded by a consensus. Your colleagues and probably your friends agree with you.
In my real life here in the U.K. as an admirer of Israel I am in a minority. I am surrounded by a barrage of opposition. This is largely due to the media and in particular to the trusted BBC. You have a lethal weapon in your hands, the BBC, its reputation, and the power to influence huge numbers of people throughout the world. But you use it unwisely because you have chosen to back the wrong side.
The Islamic world is engaged in Jihad, a holy war. This involves eliminating the non Islamic world, first Israel, then the west.
If the Arabs really loved their Palestinian brothers they would have absorbed them into their enormous oil-rich countries. But they exploit your sympathy and instinctive identification with what you think is the underdog and have persuaded you that they are fighting a just cause.
You view ‘Israelis and Palestinians’ as equal enemies, like a parent who conceals they have a favourite amongst squabbling siblings. But they are not equal. The fundamental problem is hatred by followers of a medieval religion against a race of people. The former outnumbers the latter both in numbers and in space on the planet. Not only do they hate the Jews, they pledge to kill them. Israel, neatly described as a small beacon of light, is criticised by the rest of the world when it defends itself, because reality has been turned on its head. The BBC could help put this right but it will not.
Your determination to pursue multicultural ideals has allowed you to be seduced. You are oblivious to what Islamists want and have not really even bothered to conceal, because they have softened you up, or , in nuspeak, ‘groomed you’ into supporting them. Their propaganda met your welcoming embrace, and your suspicion and misunderstanding of Jews was all it took to tip the scales. I am not saying you are anti-Semitic, rather that your view of them as ‘other’ is a factor. You have somehow been anaesthetised into missing the irony, which is that extremist Islamists want to eliminate not only me, but all non-muslims, possibly including you, Jeremy Bowen, Ken Livingstone, George Galloway and Nulab. Of course you could always convert at the last moment like poor Mr. Gardner. For all I know you have already done so. By now you will be thinking I am paranoid and ridiculous, but what if I’m not?
Israelis have a reputation for being arrogant and rude. But they are honourable and are not liars. They do face an existential threat, heightened by the lack of support from the rest of the world. Now even America is wavering. But I am full of admiration for them and their vibrant country, and you should be too.
Sue, I have supported the right of Israel to exist ever since I was able to work out what freedom and democracy meant, I realised as a child that Israel was a democracy and the states around it were not and were hell bent on their destruction, its funny but a child can often see the obvious.
At age 13 I watched a documentary on the holocaust, up to that time I could not, I cried.
I was told about the death squads waiting behind the front line troops in the Arab wars, waiting to kill the Jewish population which is now historical fact.
And I still see Israel as the underdog and getting more so every day, look at the advanced weapons the numericaly superior Muslim states are building up day after day. And the effective plan using misile barrages.
During the late 80’s to early 90’s I started to waver, the multi-culturism and Palestinian bias peddled by the BBC and others started to affect me and I got the impression that the Israelis were not being fair. In 1997 I became aware of an Islamic facist assaulting a woman near the Regents Street Mosque, I was shocked as a multi-culturist, I decided to understand, and I studied Islam.
Now I support Israel every which way I can because they are in the front line against the Jihad.
The BBC and Western politicains have no understanding of Islam and have been skilfully manipulated by the Muslim world.
What is an innocent, who is sprading mischeif in the land, when that is also stnding up for your own rights and beliefs.
It is as you said it is Sue.
There are verses in the Quran that spread hatred against the Jews and are very anti-semite, the most respected hadiths are very extreme when it comes to the Jews you can not get clearer than that.
So regretfully John Reith you and your ilk have accepted the lies peddled by the Muslim world, and when the IDF is defeated and the death squads are killing every last Jew, man woman and child, you will be sitting there perhaps wondering why, but I know why?
I do not ask that the BBC counter all its negative propaganda, I want the bias to go away, that is all. And if you can not see that the Honest Reporting report exposes that then you (and the BBC) are a tool of the Muslim worlds long term plan to destroy Israel and kill every last Jew there. Please can you stop the bias, you don’t need to do it, Israel is already losing and when they do it means death for all of the Jews in Israel.
Just checking the news before starting work, checked the various blogs with accurate details of events, then to Israeli news outlets and I have found that two volleys of 11 and 9 missiles slam into Sderot and environs early Thursday while children on way to school, 4 Israelis injured, nasty picture of woman injured on debka.
Gunfire aimed at Israeli homes in Hebron.
Checked BBC last as per normal and found nothing. I guess that the BBC is awaiting some balance before publishing details?
Nasty picture of head wound is from Tuesday.
Recently I was reunited after many years with a very left-wing friend. We discussed some of these issues. When I pointed out the single-minded drive on the part of Muslims for worldwide domination through the oppression of non-Muslims and the establishment of the Caliphate he indignantly replied that I was talking nonsense. But he had no counter argument. This is not simply a blind spot. It is a refusal to acknowledge facts. As Muslims slowly but surely infiltrate the West from the East, the clamour for the introduction of Sharia law grows louder and no-go areas for non-Muslims increase. There is no need to even provide links here. Country after country in Europe will fall like skittles if they don’t wake up and resist the invasion.
By minimising Islamic terror in every way it possibly can and by turning its scorn on those who stand firm against terror, like Israel and the US, the BBC, to its shame, has taken sides in this worldwide conflict.
So John Reith can sneer as much as he likes at those who defend Israel here and pretend “impartiality”. But we know whose side Reith, the BBC apologist, is on.
And now we have the BBC headline, Fresh Gaza airstrike kills three.
No mention of the rockets hitting Israel this morning? Only those on Wednesday, though as the Israeli attack was aimed at Islamic Jihad perhaps people can guess what they were up to, that is what you have with the BBC, guess work not facts.
In this post there is this:
“Its Damascus-based leader in exile, Khaled Meshal, said it also jeopardised an informal ceasefire Hamas has adopted since 2005.”
That is nonsense, cease fire, if this is a cease fire then what is all out war?
Its publishing that sort of comment by the BBC that upsets people like me, Hamas does not have a cease fire with Israel, its lies, but this is published as fact to make Israel look the bad guys and the BBC continues to publish comments like that again and again, is that what Mr Johnstones release cost you, you disgust me.
This:
Hamas’s armed wing claimed responsibility for a heavy rocket barrage aimed at the Israeli town of Sderot on Wednesday, but there were no reports of injuries.
Well there was injuries on Tuesday and what about the Ecudorian killed by a sniper, is that forgotten?
The BBC at it again in all its nasty sick sad biased glory.
Shall we get more details of those lack of injuries on Wednesday:
An Israeli woman fleeing from a Palestinian missile blast in Sderot was run over by a car and seriously injured. It was the 43st missile fired from Gaza Wednesday
The 44nd smashed into a Sderot home. Most were aimed at this battered town and Ashkelon to the north. Two exploded in villages of the Eshkol region.
Thirty were fired in one hour from 8:00 to 9:00 a.m., injuring two people in Sderot. One exploded in Kibbutz Nir Am.
Thirty were fired in a single hour from 8:00 to 9:00 a.m., injuring another two people in Sderot. One exploded in Kibbutz Nir Am
No injuries huh?
Simon | 17.01.08 – 1:19 am
…the basic, inalienable right of Jews to live as a sovereign majority rather than at the mercy of/under the protection of other host nations as a minority…..
Interesting post. Moving, even.
But tell me, are you equally sensitive to the yearnings for self-determination within a national home of the Kurdish, Basque, Catalan, Tibeten, Karen and…..er…Palestinian peoples?
Sue | 17.01.08 – 5:41 am
Accidentally, you’ve put your finger on it.
The Islamic world is engaged in Jihad, a holy war. This involves eliminating the non Islamic world, first Israel, then the west.
No, a small proportion of the Islamic world is. (I’ll come back to that.)
If the Arabs really loved their Palestinian brothers they would have absorbed them into their enormous oil-rich countries.
Ah but they don’t. That’s the problem with racial (racist?) assumptions • they’re very often not true. As we’re seeing in Kenya, Africans can loathe one another wholeheartedly. The twentieth century saw Europeans doing even worse things to one another. Why should Arabs be different?
The fundamental problem is hatred by followers of a medieval religion against a race of people.
Race, again. Jews are not a race. And why badmouth the Middle Ages • they were a damn sight better than much of what went before, and much of what’s followed, frankly.
But I get your general point. Islam is relatively backward in social terms. But then the Jews in the shtetl would have appeared socially backward too, from the perspective of, say, Voltaire. But a relatively short exposure to enlightenment ideas quickly put the most of the Jewish people in the vanguard of social progress.
Perhaps the same will happen to Muslims? It certainly worked for Ayan Hirsi Ali.
Your determination to pursue multicultural ideals has allowed you to be seduced.
Not me guv. I’m immensely sceptical about all things multi-culti.
You are oblivious to what Islamists want and have not really even bothered to conceal, because they have softened you up, or in nuspeak, ‘groomed you’ into supporting them.
I take it you are referring to the BBC here. Wrong again. The BBC is constantly in touch with and is briefed by those in the security and political establishment who are charged with combating Islamist extremism.
Personally, I have had quite a lot of dealings with those who are in what you might call the ‘front line’ of this struggle. One of them said to me a while ago:
Probably 99% of the world’s Muslims are moderate enough. But 1% of more than a billion is a heck of a lot. That makes around 11 million crazed Jihadis. Nearly four times the size of the old Red Army, and just as deadly. But Western democratic politicians and Western technocrats can take them • and win this one like we won the Cold War. The jihadis had a $15 billion start, but now we’re cutting their money off. So long as their numbers stay at one per cent, we will win. What worries me is what happens if idiots with lead boots force more and more Muslims into the Jihadi camp. If 1% becomes, three or (God help us) five per cent…. then we’re really in trouble. That’s why, at this stage, the most important thing is to keep the headbangers out of the argument.
By ‘the headbangers’ he meant the sort of people who populate the comment threads on this blog.
If you really cared about the global struggle against extremism, you’d just shut up.
{Israelis} do face an existential threat, heightened by the lack of support from the rest of the world. Now even America is wavering.
Funny, that. Watching Dubbya in Israel, just after the writhing Jezebel was through embarrassing him with the roses, I could swear I heard Olmert making a fulsome speech of thanks for the $30 billion subsidy.
Since the end of the Cold War, US subsidies to Israel have been a touch harder to justify to the taxpayer. But bigging up Israel’s part in the war on terror helps. Hence the hasbara crews here and elsewhere constantly badmouthing Islam. Trouble is • that’s just what gets the headbangers going. See Martin’s posts on this site. What you’re doing isn’t helping.
The truth comes out from one of the many John Reiths
“you’d just shut up”
and
“What you’re doing isn’t helping”
The real basis for Have your Say and post your comment is Don’t Have Your Say and don’t post your comment, unless the BBC agree with it.
“Race, again. Jews are not a race” One of Team John Reith.
You just saying something does not make it a fact.
There are many who do not agree with you.
Interestingly the nazis did not murder any Jews for their religion, they killed them for their race, being Christian, atheist or whatever did not save them, they died for being of Jewish blood of the Jewish race.
And just what makes you say that the Jews are not a race but the Palestinians are a race?
Could you make your answer with evidence and not merely an its true because I(we) say so.
Dear John Reith
Thank you for tackling my post which I thought had got lost in the thread change.
I don’t know what to make of it. Some things you say I disagree with, but the warning to shut up had me scratching my head.
Firstly, the question of Arabs, brotherhood and race. The reason I said that was simply because they use the plight of their Palestinian brothers as justification for their Jihad. This compassion stopped short of alleviating their brothers’ refugee status, as they could have, and as Israel did with their Jewish refugees, equal in number, and equal in destitution.
Are Jews a Race? This is disputed, but Jewish identity is passed on by your mother so it seems a bit silly to quibble. I googled it as you probably did.
The Middle Ages. They do sound attractive in some ways. No Eastenders etc. But I prefer these days with the internet and the ability to interact with everyone, as well as dentists, and contact lenses. But thanks for asking.
If, by ‘enlightenment’ you mean the British Moslems who are exposed to western values, if anything, it seems to have enraged a lot of them. As for culture, i.e. the rubbish you put out in your viewing figure battles, some of them pick up the very worst of it; headscarf, mobile phone, chewing gum, innit.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Wafa Sultan and Nonie Darwish who I admire greatly, all seemed to reach their enlightenments spontaneously by independent thinking engendered by their own intelligence.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali does not agree at all with your theory that there are good Muslims and Bad muslims. Or degrees of Islam, like ‘moderate’. There is no grey area with her. And she should know.
By ‘wavering’ I meant Dubya throwing Israel to the wolves, for a grand finale quick-fix – not funding. Palestinians receive more aid per capita not, of course from their compassionate oil wealthy co-religionists – but from the west, so in that light any funding of Israel by the US falls into place in the scale of things. As do arguments about the ‘Jewish lobby’ relative size of countries, numbers of population, amount of arms etc. in other words the things you distort to demonise Israel.
Is a headbanger a meddling idiot by any chance?
You telling me to shut up troubles me. How can I be making matters worse?
You are the ones who are making matters worse by abusing the enormous power you have inherited. By simply being the BBC you are able to systematically influence Britain’s and your worldwide audience’s attitude to Israel by misrepresenting everything about it, and by so doing have encouraged anti-semitism, so please don’t warn me to shut up and appease Islam.
You ‘know things’ that I don’t understand – are you afraid I will enrage more Muslims into a Jihad camp?
In my view your misunderstanding of Jews, their motives, and their need for, and right for Israel as a Jewish state, is only outweighed by your misunderstanding of the nature of Islam and the threat it poses to the things you hold dear, free speech, democracy, not to mention homosexuality, female emancipation, your arms and legs, and much, much more.
But thanks for answering.
JR – Your spooky friend ‘in the frontline’ thinks that criticism of Islam should be avoided, – presumbly he means justified as well as unjustified criticism – in the hope of avoiding WWIII. Is this also official BBC policy? If the British people were to think this policy is insanely mistaken how should they go about getting it changed?
John “so called” Reith
“That’s why, at this stage, the most important thing is to keep the headbangers out of the argument.
By ‘the headbangers’ he meant the sort of people who populate the comment threads on this blog.”
So glad you can be with us Wraith.
“If you really cared about the global struggle against extremism, you’d just shut up.”
Yes people,leave this to your betters,after all Wraith works for the BBC,the people who “liberated Kabul”.
Sue,
”
You ‘know things’ that I don’t understand – are you afraid I will enrage more Muslims into a Jihad camp? ”
Wraith is simply another salaried myrmidon of the the BBC,as such, outside his knowledge of his little part of the BBC,the views of John “so called Reith” are no more valid than those any one else.
In fact Wraith has wandered so far from the issue of BBC bias that he is beginning to sound like a half arsed troll.
JR,
I think that your post about headbangers is really a straightforward admittance of not unconscious, but fully conscious bias against Israel.
You are biased to appease Islam, and to make sure that 1% of radicals did not turn into 3%.
Why didn’t you say so earlier!
Why the lies all this time.
Trying to make everyone here sound crazy only backfired on you.
Finally, is this sanctioned by FO, or just by a shady group of “contacts” you have in the government?
John Reith,
Again, thank you for responding.
I’m glad you felt my post was moving.
To answer your question, I am most certainly sensitive to the yearnings of other peoples for a national home, including the Palestinians. I would hope that a fair balance could be struck between their yearning for a home and the yearning of the Jewish people for a home. That’s the fundamental basis of the two-state solution. But when mainstream Palestinian negotiators continue to tout the “right of return” of four millions Palestinians into the country of Israel (population 7 million) in addition to the right to their own independent state, as a necessary outcome of any peace agreement, and the notion of a bi-national state slowly gains currency on the left’s political scene, I am naturally concerned that the careful constructed balancing act that is required to satisfy both national yearnings will come crashing down.
Moreover, the point of my post was that there is a difference between criticism of Israeli policy and gross insensivity to the national yearnings of the Jewish people. One is legitimate, the other is bigoted. I would argue the same for the Kurds—questioning the tactics of the PKK in Turkey would be legitimate, damning and demonizing the Kurds for aspiring to national sovereignty isn’t. Same goes for the Palestinians—criticizing their government for being corrupt, inept, supportive of terrorism is legitimate, demonizing the entire Palestinian people for their yearning for a state isn’t.
John Reith,
In your post to Sue you refer to the “Hasbara” crews on this blog. I’ve noticed similar reactions from other British new sources. You act as if there is truly no underlying, genuine support en masse for Israel from regular readers, that the support you read on this blog and others is somehow part of a giant, spinning Israeli propaganda machine. Boy, how wrong you are. Israel’s “hasbara” is mostly horrible. The only reason Israel has as much support as it does on the internet is because of the outrage individual readers feel when they read distorted and biased accounts of events in Israel and the Middle East on sites like the BBC. This is grass roots outrage, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with “hasbara.” It’s the same myopic view that makes it difficult for some among the British elites to understand that there is fundamental, genuine support in the US for Israel based on shared values, not just based on the “nefarious Israel lobby.”
Since the end of the Cold War, US subsidies to Israel have been a touch harder to justify to the taxpayer. But bigging up Israel’s part in the war on terror helps. Hence the hasbara crews here and elsewhere constantly badmouthing Islam. Trouble is – that’s just what gets the headbangers going. See Martin’s posts on this site. What you’re doing isn’t helping.
John Reith | 18.01.08 – 3:06 pm
Well, thanks for that, Reith. I didn’t realise there was a ‘hasbara’ crew here. I must have missed the memo. I thought we were just individuals expressing our views on BBC bias. I also didn’t realise that we were trying to maintain the flow of money to Israel from the US by ‘bigging up’ Israel’s role in the war on terror. Must have missed that memo as well. Must have also got my geography wrong as to where Israel is situated in this war on terror, and misunderstood the ongoing, state-sponsored anti-Jew hatred in the Muslim world fuelling Islamic terrorism. I didn’t realise that we were contibuting to the radicalisation of Muslims here. I thought their imams were doing that.
You woudn’t be trying that old trick of Muslims putting the blame for their own actions on anyone but themselves would you?
The idea implicit in your post that the BBC is somehow on the right side in the war on terror took me back to a comment I made in response to conspiracy theorist Atlas shrugged:
OK you win. The BBC is an arm of British intelligence. As a cover it pretends to be anti-British by:
*holding sympathetic interviews with the Taleban
*ignoring British troops returning from Afghanistan
*teaching little children that bin Laden is an everyday sort of guy with genuine grievances
**loading the post 9/11 Question Time audience with Muslim haters of Britain’s ally, America.
*calling for info on coalition troop movements in Iraq
*reporting negatively on coalition troops in Iraq
*campaigning against those who would expose Islamic terrorist literature in mosques
*trashing Christianity while elevating Islam
*excising the T-word from the English language
and so on and so forth.
The BBC is aware that by doing these things it encourages and strengthens the enemies of Britain while at the same time weakening Britain but it feels this is a small price to pay for maintaining its cover. The BBC is not biased. It is simply playing an elaborate game of espionage.
Reith, you have a helluvah cheek trying to represent the BBC as the good guys here and to pretend that people who are justifiably outraged by its submission to Islam and rejection of its British roots are dangerous and misguided.
I suppose that I am one of the head bangers.
I have understood the strategy of the West for some time.
I happen to thinks its failing and it will fail because of the people who are in the West now, its a funny thing to note, but the most extreme Muslims in percentages of the Muslim population happen to live in the West.
So we win hearts and minds in the Middle East, but lose them by trying to stop the extremists in the West.
I hope your right John Reith, but I really do doubt it.
“Finally, is this sanctioned by FO, or just by a shady group of “contacts” you have in the government?
HA HA HA Ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha….
This is John “so called” Reith you are talking about. Read the archaic language nobody talks like that any more,anyone that did is either retired or is pushing up the daisies.
The BBC is now modern,shove it up your nose let it all hang out kind of people.Certainly not the sort to be in league with the government,well not the British government,in matters like this.
BBC is now ideologically against Western world, and what made possible the Western World. It is like if in Germany occupation following WW2 BBC would relate Werewolf actions as a resistance against occupation, and a BBC reporter would have should tears for a Weerewolf leader.
BBC manipulate the news hiding from the news rockets that land in Israel almost daily and only putting the news on when there is an Israeli retaliation. What about if that retaliation was counter battery fire BBC “News”? and what if that would hit a school because Palestinians terrorists where shooting from there? BBC “News” would be obviously drolling.
Btw where is the BBC “News” piece calling War Crimes the indiscriminate rockets against civilian population?
Where is the BBC “News” about Palestinian War Crimes when they shot a rocket from a Palestinian school patio? Risking the life of innocent Palestinian children?
BBC is nowhere because BBC “News” is part of a lobby, a lobby that wants to instill guilt in West to take the power easily.
Hence the hasbara crews here and elsewhere constantly badmouthing Islam. Trouble is • that’s just what gets the headbangers going. See Martin’s posts on this site. What you’re doing isn’t helping.
John Reith | 18.01.08 – 3:06 pm
You can count be out of that statement Mr Reith, I’ve got too much call on my time controlling the World’s banks and the media. Muppet.
So the leader of the Hezbollah gang boasts about holding Israeli ‘body parts’. What is it that makes these chanting scumbags so viscerally disgusting?
In truth, the Israel military could wipe them out in week if they decided to. I just wish they would get on with it.
Sue
I thought your post was very revealing.
The Islamic world is engaged in Jihad, a holy war. This involves eliminating the non Islamic world, first Israel, then the west…
The fundamental problem is hatred by followers of a medieval religion against a race of people…Not only do they hate the Jews, they pledge to kill them. Israel…is criticised by the rest of the world when it defends itself…The BBC could help put this right but it will not.
You have made your opinions clear. You dont want an impartial BBC. You want a BBC that will help further your political goals.
Perhaps you should put those contact lenses in?