Please use this thread for comments about the BBC’s current programming and activities. This post will remain at or near the top of the blog – scroll down for new topic-specific posts. N.B. this is not an invitation for general off-topic comments, rants or chit-chat. Thoughtful comments are encouraged. Comments may be moderated.
JR : “No, it does matter. The beginning of the end-game for F Castro.”
acting leader Raul Castro, said the new chamber would meet on 24 February, when it is expected to decide whether Fidel will remain president
Don’t be daft. The new chamber isn’t going to decide whether Fidel will remain President. It will just report what it has been told to decide by the leadership. Cuba is a country where the leader chooses the MPs, not the MPs the leader. That is why reporting the Cuban “election” as if it were of any significance is at best pointless, and at worst an exercise in deceiving the public. The new Cuban MPs were determined long ago – when the leadership selected them as the only candidates for their seats.
It’s a stitch up – much like a BBC competition.
Simon | 20.01.08 – 7:40 pm
Finally got through to the Ron Paul blog.
Boilerplate antisemitic garbage. I don’t suppose the candidate knows it’s there – I’m surprised someone hasn’t got it taken down.
Freedman….so soon after Bobby Fischer. I had thought ‘self-hating’ Jews were pretty rare. Clearly, not so rare.
What worries me is what appears to be your proposed solution: ‘If historical facts are (ab)used and twisted rotten to provide underpinning for an antisemitic trope, then we must deny the facts.’
But that’s crazy. Antisemites say Jews ‘dominate’ the world of finance. But it doesn’t do any good to say there are no Jews in banking.
Antisemites say Jews ‘control’ Hollywood. But the correct response surely isn’t to lie, saying there are no Jewish film producers.
Antisemites say Jews are trying to ‘take over’ culture. But there’s no point denying there are Jewish musicians and writers and that Jews sit on the boards of opera companies.
Surely the proper response is to challenge the ‘dominate’. ‘control’ , ‘take over’conspiracy memes.
If Lloyd George says he courted Zionist organizations for various reasons and some nut tries to make that into a ‘Jewish conspiracy’ story, just say it wasn’t a Jewish conspiracy; it was British diplomacy.
After all, it was.
It’s important to constantly portray Jews and Israel as “all powerful” to avoid the chance that they might once again be regarded as victims .
It’s also important to constantly paint the Palestinians as “victims”
That’s the BBC policy.
To the business elites it helps keep the price of Oil down and lubricates the wheels of ME contracts.
To the liberal left it provides the glue that binds them in wet dream solidarity to prop up the lunatic dislike of their own culture.
That is why the Protocols, secret lists of powerfull Jews who ‘subvert’ the governments and economy have been such a hit amongst the Jew and Israeli haters. If you look at the Ron Paul web site and the Gandhi comments on the Washington Post web site, you should be horrified by the hundreds who lap up the conspiracy theories to fuel their Jew hatred.
It wasn’t Gandhi’s idiotic piece in the Wapo that floored me but the realisation that there are thousands of nuts out there who agre
JR,
Your double standards and power of denial by clinging to a tree in a forest are simply amazing.
I said NATO bombing of Yugoslavia.
You say 27 people in Belgrade, as if NATO bombed only downtown Belgrade and not the entire Serbia (including Kosovo at that time).
I quote:
“NATO acknowledged killing at most 1,500 civilians. Human Rights Watch counted a minimum of 488 civilian deaths (90 to 150 of them killed from cluster bomb use) in 90 separate incidents. Attacks in Kosovo overall were more deadly – a third of the incidents account for more than half of the deaths.”
You quote back the statistics for downtown Belgrade – 27.
Your selective quote are ridiculous, HRW that you like to quote in your other posts says: “488 civilian deaths (90 to 150 of them killed from cluster bomb use)”
You go to repeat your statistics that focuses on downtown Belgrade. What people outside of Belgrade are not equal (some Belgrader’s might agree with you on that one 🙂 ).
Not that it matters, but Zemun, Batajnica, and the rest are also Belgrade and so is Surcin and Zarkovo. Most targets were there.
In Zemun two tomahawk missiles was chasing Arkan (rightly so), a Yugoslavia hotel was hit, a dozen people died, but unfortunately not Arkan.
Nevertheless civilian vs. military casualty ratio was much worse than 30%. The NATO command acknowledges this. Cluster bombs were used, and power was cut to the whole of Serbia.
That all is a normal, if devastating, effect of military operation against the army that hides with the civilians!
What is it so difficult for you to comprehend about collateral damage?
You cannot accept Palestinian civilian casualties, it turns out you cannot stomach the fact that NATO killed 488 civilians, so your brain goes into overdrive
and focuses on downtown Belgrade to lower the number, while ignoring the rest of Yugoslavia?
Is this why you ignore the fire from Gaza? You cannot stomach the fact that someone can target civilians as Hamas and Islamic Jihad do? Is this why you ignore it, like
you ignore non-Belgraders – you cannot stomach hearing that people got killed? Why the selectivness?
Some poeople Palestinian civilians, Belgraders are wrong to kill. While Israelis and non-Belgraders are not?
I’m asking for real now – this is not a rhetorical question?
“Freedman….so soon after Bobby Fischer. I had thought ‘self-hating’ Jews were pretty rare. Clearly, not so rare.”
They are not rare at all and you often quote quote some of them without knowing it.
‘You cannot stomach the fact that someone can target civilians as Hamas and Islamic Jihad do? ‘.
OF course not! – that would dramatically reduce their status of institutionalized victims.
Since the Serbs are not to be regarded as victims but aggressors it matters not how many are killed,
JR,
“If Lloyd George says he courted Zionist organizations for various reasons and some nut tries to make that into a ‘Jewish conspiracy’ story, just say it wasn’t a Jewish conspiracy; it was British diplomacy.”
So why do you think your selective quotes are important to the issue of BBC bias then?
The only reason I can think of is to prove how Israel is an illegitimate child on the sunset of the British Empire.
What other nation in the world was not created in such a way?
Don’t you think deals and similar considerations (such as appeasement of the Muslim world) are constantly made about the future of Kosovo?
chevalier de st george | 20.01.08 – 9:32 pm |
On Gandhi’s son and WaPo:
One of the advantages of getting a solid Communist education like I did, was to have learned some of the things in school that Lefties in the West are only discovering now.
Arun Gandhi, much like his grandfather is totally delusional about off the scale evil like the Nazis or today’s Islamists.
To understand just how lucky Mohandas Gandhi was to have fought the British, and not the Nazis.
And to understand how delusional can one get due to their own life experiences, I’ll bring here some memorable quotes from:
http://www.answers.com/topic/mohandas-gandhi
[…]
In 1940, when invasion of the British Isles by Nazi Germany looked
imminent, Gandhi offered the following advice to the British people
(Non-Violence in Peace and War):[21]
“I would like you to lay down the arms you have as being useless
for saving you or humanity. You will invite Herr Hitler and Signor
Mussolini to take what they want of the countries you call your
possessions…. If these gentlemen choose to occupy your homes, you
will vacate them. If they do not give you free passage out, you will
allow yourselves, man, woman, and child, to be slaughtered, but you
will refuse to owe allegiance to them.”
[…]
In the same article, Gandhi continued by stating that:
“If I were a Jew and were born in Germany and earned my livelihood
there, I would claim Germany as my home even as the tallest Gentile
German might, and challenge him to shoot me or cast me in the dungeon;
I would refuse to be expelled or to submit to discriminating
treatment. And for doing this I should not wait for the fellow Jews to
join me in civil resistance, but would have confidence that in the end
the rest were bound to follow my example. If one Jew or all the Jews
were to accept the prescription here offered, he or they cannot be
worse off than now. And suffering voluntarily undergone will bring
them an inner strength and joy […] the calculated violence of Hitler
may even result in a general massacre of the Jews by way of his first
answer to the declaration of such hostilities. But if the Jewish mind
could be prepared for voluntary suffering, even the massacre I have
imagined could be turned into a day of thanksgiving and joy that
Jehovah had wrought deliverance of the race even at the hands of the
tyrant. For to the God-fearing, death has no terror”.[62]
Unfortunately, it seems most Jews heeded Gandhi’s (the grandfather) advice… and died en masse.
Now his grandson Arun wants Israel to do the same.
this story was page 108 on ceefax over the weekend – i.e the 6th most important story in the world
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7195276.stm
this story – 1 day later – was not put on ceefax at all …..hmmmm…..
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7198435.stm
but it is news at all ? al beeb has clearly reprinted an amnesty press release. fair enough sowhy not make a big splash of this one – put on ceefax all weekend why don’t you…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7188121.stm
I can’t exactly understand the point about civilians killed in Gaza unless JR is implying that Israelis deliberately kill civilians – otherwise, he says, they are bad shots. Suppose they are bad shots, is this morally the same as sending missiles to kill civilians deliberately?
Alan, although I agree with almost everything you wrote I think that bombing Serbia was illegal – never authorised by UN – and wrong.
Here’s PART 1 of a comparison between the BBC online report ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7198798.stm ) , the CNN website report ( http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/01/20/israel.palestinians.ap/index.html
) and the MSNBC online report (
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22753987/
) on the shutdown of fuel in Gaza.
It’s instructive because even though it does not feature cartoonishly exaggerated examples of BBC bias against Israel, it does illustrate how cumulative emphasis, subtle wording and innuendo, and asymmetric placement of points of view tilts the balance in the BBC piece in favor of one side, and how the other two reports do a much better job of being journalistically neutral and even-handed.
It takes until Paragraph 17 of 25, or 2/3 of the way into the BBC article, to feature the Israeli counter-claim regarding the loss of electricity, albeit a truncated version; “If they shut it down, it’s not because of a fuel shortage, but because they want to create the impression of a crisis, “he said.
It takes only 8 Paragraphs into a 28 paragraph story in the CNN piece to feature the Israeli view, which is presented with a more rounded rationale: “The blackout “is a Hamas ploy to pretend there is some kind of crisis to attract international sympathy,” he told The Associated Press.”
Moreover, the BBC omits something both CNN and MSNBC reports featured: (MSNBC): “In addition to the fuel it receives from Israel to power its electrical plant, Gaza gets about two-thirds of its electricity directly from Israel. Israeli officials said that supply would not be affected.”
CNN says: “Israel justified the cutoff because of continuous rocket attacks by Gaza militants. Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Arye Meckel said the Gaza Strip continues to receive 70 percent of its electricity supply directly from Israel, which would not be affected, and another 5 percent from Egypt.”
Now, here is the BBC version: “But Israel, which provides 60% of Gaza’s power, says the territory still has sufficient fuel stocks.
The UN believes Gaza’s 1.5m inhabitants face serious hardship and one of its officials said unheated hospitals were having to rely on generators for operations.”
Notice how the BBC omits the salient feature that Israel makes plain the 70% (60% in the BBC report for some reason) of electiricity which Israel provides would not be shut off. This both positions Israel as not quite the “ogre” it appears in the BBC piece, as well, perhaps more importantly, as lending some credibility to the claim that perhaps Hamas is unnecessarily shutting down its electricity plant. Otherwise, why wouldn’t Israel simply shut off part or all of the remaining 70% electricity?
Moreover, the Paragraph which asserts this in the CNN piece is a mere 4 paragraphs in from the top of the article.
Alan | 20.01.08 – 9:35 pm
I chose Belgrade because you stipulated ‘urban areas’ for the comparison. Belgrade is urban.
What is it so difficult for you to comprehend about collateral damage?
The British Army were in Northern Ireland for almost as long as Israel has been in the occupied territories. By comparison, there were hardly any innocent civilians killed by the British Army. Last year seven Israeli civilians were killed by Palestinians. Only three people have been killed by rocket fire from Gaza in four years. Compared to Belfast and Derry in the early 70s, these numbers are small. Yet Israel has killed 131 innocent civilians in the last year • a marked reduction on the year before. One has to wonder how careful they are being.
Alan | 20.01.08 – 9:52 pm
So why do you think your selective quotes are important to the issue of BBC bias then?
I didn’t raise the issue of Lloyd George on this thread; Simon did. I didn’t raise it on the earlier thread; David Preiser did. The only reason it drags on is because you keep making false assertions, which I then correct.
What becomes apparent from your replies to my points on this thread and elsewhere is that you are an unreasonable extremist. Good, I’m glad we have established that, so now I can safely write off your ridiculous allegations of BBC bias as the product of the febrile imagination of yet another crank.
If you doubt you are a crank then contrast your own ‘Israel can do no wrong, everything Israel does is justified’ line, which you (and others here) have been taking for some time, to the view of those Israelis who really know what they’re talking about. No fewer than four former chiefs of Israel’s General Security Service (Shin Bet) have been very critical. These are the words of former Shin Bet chief Avraham Shalom:
If we do not turn away from this path, of adhering to the entire Land of Israel, and if we do not also begin to understand the other side, dammit, we will not get anywhere. We must, once and for all, admit that there is an other side, that it has feelings and that it is suffering, and that we are behaving disgracefully. Yes, there is no other word for it. Disgracefully.”
http://www.zeek.net/feature_0312.shtml
If someone like Avraham Shalom were to make a point about the BBC’s coverage, then I would listen with respect. But you people here are simply not honest.
You exaggerate, distort and sometimes lie.
I can’t seem to publish parts 2 or 3 of my comparison, so please wait until I do for a retort, JR.
Thanks.
JR,
First, you are the master of making statements that counter logic.
You said you stated downtown Belgrade, 27 figure, because it was an urban area.
If in NATO’s bombing of Yugoslavia, many more people were killed in non-urban that urban areas (e.g. Belgrade) than it goes to say that NATO killed 488 minus 27 civilians in easier conditions. Which would strengthen my point, not yours.
Of course, I’ll help NATO’s case here, downtown Belgrade was not the urban area that was targeted the most. Just like Gaza city is not by the IDF.
Batajnica and some other places were.
You really need to take a course in math logic. Pay special attention to 1st order logic.
Now to your second accusation – me being an extremist.
Is that your best shot? Do you really see how bad it’s gotten for you. You are just shooting in the dark (“directly” or “indirectly” – take your pick)
You also throw around: “adhering to the entire Land of Israel”
What are you talking about?
I am for full withdrawal from all occupied territories. I am for establishing a viable and prosperous Palestinian state. I am an atheist. I am for total separation of state and religion in the whole world. I am for universal human rights.
You will not find a single quote from me saying anything different than that. By all standards I am liberal.
I think you either confused me with someone else, imaginary or real, or you are just casting everyone that doesn’t agree with you as a rightist extremist.
In fact I don’t remember seeing ever a post here saying anything about Israel keeping the entire West Bank forever?
This is a minority opinion even in Israel, and has been so for a long time.
The selective quotes, from Israelis, you mention above were the people that usually ordered the attacks that also got civilians killed. It has nothing to do with Israel’s withdrawal or non-withdrawal. It has everything to do with defending a country from rocket attacks.
Of course anyone agrees something needs to be done. Israel already pulled out from 80% of the West Bank in the past, and will gladly do it again.
The question is what and how? How do you disengage if attacks continue. Tel-Aviv is in Kassam range from the West Bank.
Do you think Israelis want Tel-Aviv to turn into Sderot? Do you think any one of the people you cited above would agree to that?
Would the British agree to it if IRA was firing missiles into Britain from a lawless Republic of Ireland, usurped by corruption and fanatics?
The British army had no doubt a very tough job in Ireland, but the pressure to stop rocket attacks was never there.
Also, Catholic vs. Protestant violence is not really the same as what is going in the middle east.
When Muslim Brotherhood bombed in Aleppo, Syria, Assad the father killed 10 to 20 thousand people.
Human casualties in the Middle East if not counted in thousands, just don’t register.
The amount of people that die in ethic violence in the Arab world is higher by an order of magnitude than in Northern Ireland. Take your favorite pick – Iraq for example. We can all agree that at least 50,000 people died.
It is the Arabs that think of their lives so little. That is why Hamas and Hezbollah demand 450 prisoners for 1 Israeli.
That is why Nasrallah doesn’t think twice before attacking Israel.
It is just not the same neighborhood.
One might argue that the number of children per family has something to do with the price of human life in addition to atrocious leaders.
Even, your coworker, London tells you that your bias is obvious.
Maybe
JR,
Just for the record. I do think that almost 50% civilian casualty ratio in 2002-2003 was a very bad page in Israel’s history, and Israel should be condemned even though the carnage in Israel proper was at that time also horrific and the pressure on security service was huge.
BBC at the time, of course, underreported the carnage in Israel and overplayed that in PA.
Many Israeli officials, including those very critical of Israel, like Shimon Peres stated what they think of BBC’s coverage.
I also believe BBC did some temporary changes. Like removing Orla Guerin.
Can someone help me figure out why I can’t publish beyond 3 lines at this point? Is there some technical problem I’m not aware of? Alan?
JR,
A case in point on how things are done in the Middle East:
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSL1933730820080119?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews
Here is what Hasan Nasrallah (to you a freedom fighter, no doubt) had to say to the world the other day – he had a list of merchandise to offer:
“Oh Zionists your army is lying to you … your army has left the body parts of your soldiers in our villages and fields,” the black-turbaned leader said in a live speech transmitted to the crowd on a huge screen.
“Our mujahideen used to fight these Zionists, killing them and collecting their body parts. I am not talking about regular body parts. I tell the Israelis, we have the heads of your soldiers, we have hands, we have legs.”
Nearly 1,200 people in Lebanon, mainly civilians, and 157 Israelis, mostly soldiers, died during the 34-day war.
“There is even a near-complete body, a half or three-quarters of a body, from head, to chest to the torso,” said Nasrallah, who earlier walked among the Ashura procession. He last appeared in May at the opening of a book fair in Beirut.
In addition, the CNN piece gives more context for the fuel stoppage–“..since last Tuesday…more than 200 rockets… hit Israel. There have been no serious injuries over the past week, but residents of the Israeli towns have been traumatized by months of daily salvos.”
“But residents of the Israeli towns have been traumatized by months of daily salvos.” There is nothing close to this degree of context for the Israeli side in the BBC report. And here’s what MSNBC gives as context: “Under Hamas rule, militants have been free to fire near-daily rocket barrages at Israeli towns around Gaza, terrorizing swaths of southern Israel.”
It uses the term “terrorizing” to describe the effect on Israelis. Nothing close to this either on the BBC report.
To the contrary, the BBC report implicitly blames the 200 rockets on Israel: “More than 200 rockets and mortars have hit Israel from Gaza since an Israeli operation against militants on Tuesday which left 18 Palestinians dead, the military says”. Now I know JR might claim this statement was issued by the IDF, but I would be willing to bet it was not phrased in this way—”200 rockets since an Israeli operation against militants left 18 Palestinians dead.” For one thing the IDF would have used the term “terrorists” and for another, it wouldn’t have framed the rocket salvos as “retaliation” for its operations.
The BBC piece writes far more emotively and dramatically about the plight of the Palestinians than either the CNN piece or the MSNBC piece. “Gaza Plunged Into Darkness” on the BBC, versus “Gaza City Goes Dark” on CNN and “Gaza’s Only Power Plant is Shut Down” on MSNBC. Moreover, the BBC dwells on the suffering of the Palestinians and the impact of the shutdown for far more paragraphs than the other two reports, and when it does feature Israel’s point of view, it truncates its reasoning. 16 paragraphs of the BBC piece feature the Palestinian side, of which there are eight paragraphs alone referencing the effect of the shutdown on Palestinian hospitals and quotes from UN officials with emotive terminology like “desperate situation.” It is only 17 paragraphs in that the BBC gives 7 paragraphs to the Israeli side, does not present the full argument, and then finishes out the article with a dramatic flourish—a quote from Hamas spokesman “We will not raise the white flag and we will not surrender”. (Here’s how the MSNBC piece ends: “The Israeli government appears reluctant to order a broad ground offensive in Gaza, likely because of the possibility of high casualties and because similar operations in the past haven’t had reined in the rocket fire.” The CNN piece ends with this: “Lt. Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi, said his forces have exacted “a heavy toll” from the militants, but he admitted a solution to the rocket fire is not near.
“Even if it takes time, the goal will be achieved,” he pledged”).
By contrast, of the 28 paragraphs in the CNN piece, 14 are devoted to describing the Palestinian side, and the rest to the Israeli side. In the MSNBC piece, 7 feature the Palestinian side, 8 the Israeli side, and one points out that Israel has not provided its definition for the term “humanitarian crisis.”
Finally, the summary paragraph on the main CNN web page (CNN.com) has the headline “Fed up with attacks, Israel cuts off Gaza fuel.” I think it would be cold day in Hades before we saw a headline like that on the BBC site, don’t you?
That was part 2 of 2 on a comparison between reports on the Gaza fuel stoppage on the BBC online, CNN online and MSNBC online.
For the sake of comparison, look at the headline on “Al Jazeera.net” (English language version):
“Gaza blackout blamed on Israel. Sole power plant shut amid fuel blockade but Israel says crisis “greatly exaggerated.”
Now that is a far more honest and balanced presentation of the facts than the BBC’s report. In the sub-headline it gives Israel’s reaction and even makes it a point to indicate Israel is being “blamed” for the blackout, but not that it is necessarily responsible.
The Liberator of Kabul is reporting undercover from Zimbabwe. Paying Zim$290,000,000 for a meal in a restaurant he left a Zim$10,000,000 tip (i.e. 1/29 = 3.4%). Beeboids – biased and cheapskates!
Not usually exercised by the beeboid palestinian love in, but the Toady programme really was one sided this morning.
Why do the beeboids think it is unreasonable for Israel to retaliate when rockets are being rained down on them by hamas ?
Yes, backwoodsman, I heard that report from Gaza too. It was all about evil Israel oppressing blameless Palestinians.
Reith….Bias oozes from your every pore!A recent example of your robotic,twisted logic….
You wrote… ‘By comparison, there were hardly any innocent civilians killed by the British Army. Last year seven Israeli civilians were killed by Palestinians. Only three people have been killed by rocket fire from Gaza in four years. Compared to Belfast and Derry in the early 70s, these numbers are small. Yet Israel has killed 131 innocent civilians in the last year • a marked reduction on the year before.’
How come the Irish were ‘innocent civilians’,the Palestinians are ‘innocent civilians’ yet the Israelis are mere ‘civilians’and not in the least bit innocent!
You are a disgrace,but you’re too thick to notice.
When I read this (“Gaza economy crushed by embargo“)…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7199335.stm
…I see that al-Beeb reports …Israel announced that it was closing all the border crossings into Gaza.
All the border crossings? Even Rafah Border Crossing? It’s funny because when I look at a map of Gaza I definitely can see a border between Hamastan and Egypt. Last time I checked the eevvill Zionists weren’t running Egypt.
But in any case – why should Israel have any border crossing open with Gaza in view of the fact that Hamastan is nakedly hostile to it and calls for its total destruction? Care to address that point Mr Martin Patience?
“But you people here are simply not honest.
You exaggerate, distort and sometimes lie.
John Reith | 21.01.08 – 12:24 am | #”
I do not know which of the John Reiths posted this but it cannot be allowed to stand.
I cannot comment for other people but as ‘you people here’ is a general term clearly aimed at all of the posters on this blog, I am personally being included.
This blog does not protect you from libel.
I am enraged at your direct libel of me and insist you evidence it or apologise and withdraw it immediately.
Compare and contrast the BBC reporting on the same day –
Christian:
When a million Christian South Africans visit what they consider a holy place it is a “holy mountain”. Note it is in quotes.
muslim:
Two million muslims march on a holy day in a holy city. No quotes.
London:
I haven’t got the time or inclination to get involved in this ongoing debate, but I’m pretty sure Reith has never said his views represent those of the BBC
Unless you could show some kind of evidence that you are an employee, I’d take your claim pretty lightly given that anyone can say anything on here. As should everyone else.
Reith….Bias oozes from your every pore!A recent example of your robotic,twisted logic….
You wrote… ‘By comparison, there were hardly any innocent civilians killed by the British Army. Last year seven Israeli civilians were killed by Palestinians. Only three people have been killed by rocket fire from Gaza in four years. Compared to Belfast and Derry in the early 70s, these numbers are small. Yet Israel has killed 131 innocent civilians in the last year • a marked reduction on the year before.’
How come the Irish were ‘innocent civilians’,the Palestinians are ‘innocent civilians’ yet the Israelis are mere ‘civilians’and not in the least bit innocent!
You are a disgrace,but you’re too thick to notice.
jeffD | 21.01.08 – 9:59 am | #
I’ve argued with JR a lot on this blog, he often slithers out sideways from awkward questions by nit picking points. You are doing the same here. The issue isn’t the words – its the murderous disproportion between attack and retaliation and the lack of recognition of this by the Israeli government and its supporters.
If the UK had reacted to Irish terrorism with the same disregard for civilian victims as the Israeli government, it would have been the object of world condemnation and massive internal domestic oposition – and we all know that it would probably have fostered rather than reduced terrorism – and turned the Republic of Ireland from an unreliable ally to an outright enemy. Actually this is pretty much what’s happened in response to Israel’s policies.
The BBC has an obvious pro-Palestinian bias but I’m afraid I have to agree with JR that some people on this blog would continue to think that unless its reporting was universally approving of the position and policies of the Israeli government.
BaggieJonathan | 21.01.08 – 1:27 pm
I am enraged at your direct libel of me and insist you evidence it or apologise and withdraw it immediately.
Actually, you were not among those I had in mind when I posted. I have long thought of you as one of the more reasonable people around here. But since you press the matter, I link below two of your recent comments. The first distorts what I said to make a cheap point. The second completely invents a view that I have nowhere stated and do not indeed hold (that the Jews are not a race but the Palestinians are) and ascribes it to me.
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/3860363116157786920/#380667
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/3860363116157786920/#380668
The BBC has an obvious pro-Palestinian bias but I’m afraid I have to agree with JR that some people on this blog would continue to think that unless its reporting was universally approving of the position and policies of the Israeli government.
Wrong! I don’t agree with a lot of policies of the Israeli government.
Here is a BBC article that I don’t consider obviously biased:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7200194.stm
It reports on what is prompting both sides to act. It is reporting on the Palestinian civilian suffering.
It is reporting that part of the power cut is a PR stunt, but part of it is real because Gaza cannot reroute the energy, etc.
It is just a clearer picture of what is going on both sides and not just PR for Hamas.
“I haven’t got the time or inclination to get involved in this ongoing debate, but I’m pretty sure Reith has never said his views represent those of the BBC”
Yes,it is just a coincidence that John “so called “Reith bears the same name as the founding father of the BBC.
JR has also stated that he is a multiple personality representing a number of BBC employees.Though nowadays he sounds more like a spokesman for Hamas.
“….. and we all know that it would probably have fostered rather than reduced terrorism – and turned the Republic of Ireland from an unreliable ally to an outright enemy. Actually this is pretty much what’s happened in response to Israel’s policies.”
Egypt, Syria: unreliable allies of Israel? What is anononymous trying to say? If I had posted that, I too would remain anonymous.
World at one.
(I think it was) Martha Kearny gave that Palestinian spokesperson a tougher than usual grilling today, she kept cool when he started to become hysterical.
But the balance of this item reverted to type when the spokesperson from UNWRA, having refused to get into the blame game, was allowed to get away with the last word about brutal collective punishment.
When all and sundry condemn Israel for proactively targeting militants, and now for imposing collective punishment, I have yet to hear the BBC ask for suggestions from any of these interviewees as to what alternative strategy they would recommend to put an end to the rocket attacks and shootings that emanate from Gaza.
“I am enraged at your direct libel of me and insist you evidence it or apologise and withdraw it immediately.”
Oh, please. Compared to the personal attacks on Reith and the rather pathetic but invariably automatic assumption on B-BBC that anyone defending the BBC is leftwing, works for them and is part of a terrible dhimmi conspiracy, you’ve been tickled with a feather old chap.
“The first distorts what I said to make a cheap point. The second completely invents a view that I have nowhere stated and do not indeed hold (that the Jews are not a race but the Palestinians are) and ascribes it to me.” John Reith | 21.01.08 – 1:45 pm
You said that we (I) am not honest.
You qualified that by saying that included exaggeration, distortion and lying.
In my book being not honest is lying but as you offered the qualification I will proceed.
You do not accuse me of lying (which is just as well) or exaggeration (hard to quantify what would qualify anyway as the BBC is quite happy to cover things and you argue over how much counts).
I do not accept that my first point distorted you, whether you consider it ‘cheap’ is a matter of opinion, but it is not distortion.
As for the second point, I put together (in good faith) two of your views;
Your belief that the Jews are not a race.
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/3860363116157786920/#380667
“Race, again. Jews are not a race.” John Reith | 18.01.08 – 3:06 pm |
and
I have to admit I would have to trawl through a lot of material to find your comments on the Palestinians and I am not in a position to devote the many hours to do so.
I remember ‘John Reith’ pontificating on this during a very specific argument about the origins of Palestine some months ago.
If I am wrong in my memory I will of course retract but I doubt its the case, perhas someone will enlighten me how I can search haloscan and I will try to do so.
I do not have the resources of the BBC or ‘John Reith’ who you admitted in posting:
“Behind the pseudonym John Reith are indeed several people valiantly defending BBC against the unfounded accusations of bias.
John Reith | 31.12.07 – 5:20 pm |”
Unfortunately I am not several people with access to a three billion organisation and I do have a job to do that means I cannot spend 24/7 on here.
4:50 No logic there,.
More leftie bias from Simon Mayo. He had the usual Global warming rubbish with two leftie idiots in the studio. Needless to say at no point did Mayo challenge any of the assumptions about the claims of these two idiots (one being some ex Government “science” person) and a dopey bird.
For example, the claim that fuel such as petrol will only get more expensive.
Er lies, lies lies. Petrol is dirt cheap, it’s the TAX that makes it expensive you bloody useless left wing morons.
Without the tax petrol would be about 20p a litre, you could fill your car up for under £10.
Stop telling lies BBC.
Oh and I noticed the bloody BBC are recycling that report from the idiot Harrabin about bio fuels.
No one took any notice of it when he made it two weeks ago (and I posted about the utter lies in his article) so guess what? Yep, the BBC are vomiting it up again.
We’re not interested BBC so sod off.
“personal attacks on Reith” p and a tale of one chip | 21.01.08 – 3:06 pm
Personal attacks if such there were must be on a person, not several persons as ‘Reith’ actually is.
“anyone defending the BBC is leftwing”
p and a tale of one chip | 21.01.08 – 3:06 pm
I have written several times that the blog is about bias and not just left wing bias, I assume you just couldn’t be bothered to read any of those in the past even when you have commented on the same thread and typed your comment regardless.
Bit pointless engaging you in further discussion then.
For example, the claim that fuel such as petrol will only get more expensive.
Er lies, lies lies. Petrol is dirt cheap, it’s the TAX that makes it expensive you bloody useless left wing morons.
Martin | 21.01.08 – 3:17 pm | #
Well sure it is cheap (though not comparatively), but unless taxes are lowered it probably will won’t it? I don’t expect the price to oil to be dropping much over the long term
“I have written several times that the blog is about bias and not just left wing bias”
You’re kidding. You might as well have written that this blog is about toffee apples for all that your view holds water.
You don’t genuinely believe this blog or its posters either track or are remotely interested in right wing bias at the BBC do you?
BaggieJonathan | 21.01.08 – 3:08 pm |
Peter | Homepage | 21.01.08 – 2:29 pm
Behind the pseudonym John Reith are indeed several people valiantly defending BBC against the unfounded accusations of bias.
John Reith | 31.12.07 – 5:20 pm |
If you think I wrote that post, you must be a good deal more stupid than I took you to be.
That’s clearly a forgery. Not the first time someone’s appropriated my identity here.
Now what were we discussing?
Ah yes. Endemic dishonesty at B-BBC.
QED
JR again misses the point that the contributors to this site have no set standards, no Charter, no ‘qualifications’ and no funding. In spite of these facts, I find out what is really going on in the world by the contributors pointing out what the BBC is NOT reporting: that is what JR knows, but cannot tolerate.
“Endemic dishonesty at B-BBC.”
Now THAT is rubbish John and you know it! On the one hand you want to smear every poster here and on the other you want to claim that the WHOLE of the BBC is pure and unbiased….naughty.
Time and again we’ve provided facts and personal experience that undermines or shoots down case after case you’ve presented. Nor do we ignore right wing bias because we have yet to find any!
Now onto a quick point you made:
“By comparison, there were hardly any innocent civilians killed by the British Army. Last year seven Israeli civilians were killed by Palestinians. Only three people have been killed by rocket fire from Gaza in four years. Compared to Belfast and Derry in the early 70s, these numbers are small. Yet Israel has killed 131 innocent civilians in the last year • a marked reduction on the year before. One has to wonder how careful they are being.”
There are two points here – one is that the violence in Gaza has gone up by a huge amount resulting in more insertions of IDF incurring more deaths and injuires as the PA/Hamas deliberately put their civilians in harm’s way. How many kids would die if they weren’t standing around missile launchers etc? In NI we rarely went into Crossmaglen for example with tanks, gunships and air support so to compare NI with Israel/Gaza is not really the right thing to do.
The other point is that you say “Last year seven Israeli civilians were killed by Palestinians. Only three people have been killed by rocket fire from Gaza in four years.”
The reason only three have died from rocket fire is (a) the unguided nature of the rockets – were the Russians to come back on board and help out the PA/Hamas then they would be a darned sight more accurate and deadly and (b) Israel unlike the PA actually builds AIR RAID shelters for their people. Thus proving that Israel loves life and the Palis love death to paraphrase Golda Meir. 200 rockets in a week is NOT nibbling at a giant’s ankles as one of your unbiased writers put it!
Can we all calm down now?
You really are comparing apples and kiwi fruits using Israel and NI. Different tactics, different methods of attack.
PS Using the word ‘only’ negates the fact that people have died. It matters not if it is only 3 or 250. Just because the Palis only managed to kill 3 despite their efforts is not for lack of trying to kill more. It gives the wrong impression.
Sorry John Boy,why should anyone believe you? You are an obvious racist with an an agenda,perhaps you use the BBC as a cover to propagate your vile views.
You have wandered too far from defending the BBC to being an apologist for the Palestinian cause.You are entitled to your views but not to disseminate them on the tax payer’s money.
dave t | 21.01.08 – 4:54 pm
the violence in Gaza has gone up by a huge amount resulting in more insertions of IDF incurring more deaths and injuires as the PA/Hamas deliberately put their civilians in harm’s way.
Well actually, I think the violence is going down. If you look at 2005-6, the Israelis fired something over 7000 artillery rounds in Gaza. They’ve stopped that now.
How many kids would die if they weren’t standing around missile launchers etc?
A lot. If you check out the B’tselem site I linked, you’ll see that many of the kids are killed at home, on the way to shops etc. The rocket launcher case was the rare event.
In NI we rarely went into Crossmaglen for example with tanks, gunships and air support…
Well that’s precisely my point.
200 rockets in a week is NOT nibbling at a giant’s ankles
True, but neither’s 5000+ artillery rounds in around 2 months • which happened in 2006.
Different tactics, different methods of attack.
You said it.
How does anyone here know who is posting in their own time? I hope no-one else here who works in the private sector is using the firm’s time and the population at large having to fund it via its pricing stucture needing to cover staff costs. 🙂
JR,
If you think your quoting of constantly quoting B’Tselem is giving you “unbias” points, you are dead wrong. B’Tselem is a group with an agenda. Just like Code Pink is in the US.