Interesting to read that exiled Palestinian terrorist leader George Habash has died. The BBC reports the death of this “radical” – an odd choice of word for a thug with the depraved pedigree Habash carries. In fairness the BBC does make clear that this anti-Semitic thug always advocated violence against Israel, a tradition which Arafat – who the BBC canonised – enthusiastically followed. But here is the stinger; given his murderous track record that is so bad that even the BBC cannot sanitise it – Al Beeb then points out that Mahmoud Abbas – that much vaunted “partner for peace” in the current Middle East political process – has declared three days of national mourning for Habash. Wiping tears from his eyes no doubt, Abbas also described him as a a “historic” leader. I’m sure the next of kin of those many Israelis who lost their lives at the hands of Habash and his terrorist gang may have another word for him
The bit that annoys me is why the BBC continually portrays Abbas as “a moderate” when he is in reality a notorious holocaust denier, a lifetime associate of Arafat the terrorist godfather, and an admirer of the unlamented George Habash, the man who dedicated his wretched life to killing Jews. Words matter and the use of terms like “radical” and “moderate” to describe extremist thugs like Habash and Abbas is inaccurate. It’s like saying Hitler was a “radical” but Goebbels was more of a “moderate”. It’s a matter of degree, and whether it’s Habash, Arafat or Abbas, these guys are terrorist thugs in the first degree.
Additional link posted by Natalie: I was going to post a link to the following story separately, but since it is so closely linked to the topic of David’s post I hope he won’t mind me adding it here: Remember that picture of Yasser Arafat, blood donor? Here is the BBC story mentioned in Scott Johnson’s article.
Off topic in that it’s about more allegations of bent Labour donations:
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/labour/story/0,,2247668,00.html
Mention of this story on the BBC? None, so far.
As if the right hand man of that foul old terrorist Arafat could possibly be a “moderate”. The US, EU and Israel are all trying to portray Abbas as a moderate and he’s looking more and more uncomfortable in this role as time goes by.
The leopard doesn’t change his spots.
Natalie,
Thanks for the link. Can’t recall al-Beeb posting a correction to the Arafat PR stunt. but then again, I bet it’s not JUST Barbara Plett who misses him.
Interestingly, the picture of Arafat appears to have been removed from Johnson’s article on the Weekly Standard web-page, unless there’s something wrong with my browser.
Talking about the BBC’s Middle East bias, I’ve been contributing to the HYS on the Gaza situation:
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?forumID=4131&edition=2&ttl=20080127070505
Ove the last few days I sent them five comments. They published two, bypassed two and rejected one. Apparently it broke the House Rules:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/help/4176520.stm
I’m not sure why:
“This is a propaganda war, and any information should be mistrusted from both sides,” says [paulcjm], Netherlands.
Yes, there is propaganda, but there is also truth. Israel withdrew from every square inch of Gaza in 2005 at great cost to those who were uprooted so that Gazans could have their Jew-free area.
The dust from that withdrawal had hardly settled when Gazans continued firing rockets into Israel. They saw the move as weakness.
What would you do to stop the rockets? Nothing?
Well, I suppose they didn’t like me talking about a Jew-free Gaza. Truth hurts, I suppose. Yet they feel free to publish comment after comment comparing Jews to Nazis.
I won’t call this BBC bias. As John Reith will undoubtedly show, everyone else filed the same story. Still I don’t expect huge mea culpas, for once again, taking part in a photo opportunity for the Palestinians.
The Weekly Standard is running a story:
He Didn’t Give at the Office
Remember that picture of Yasser Arafat, blood donor?
by Scott W. Johnson
02/04/2008, Volume 013, Issue 20
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/655hzspx.asp
The gist of the story, quoting of all people Charles Enderlin, of all people, is that Yasser Arafat didn’t actually donate blood on September 12 2001 after Palestinians were caught on film celebrating 9/11- a story carried by the BBC. Arafat didn’t like needles 😆
The BBC stories are quite interesting. The photo caption in Analysis: Arafat’s changed world takes on quite a different meaning if meant ironically. Unfortunately the text of the article states quite clearly the Y.A. gave blood. Mr Arafat made a show of donating blood,
http://thumbsnap.com/v/CFHUQrag.jpg
A year later, Orla Guerin, refers to the story in US ‘distracted’ from the real story of bad Israelis.
He had rushed to donate his blood for America’s wounded – making sure the TV cameras were along. As PR stunts go, it was not the most successful.
The blood was never sent as it was not needed. And hospital sources said later that no other Palestinians had followed suit. But Arafat was desperate to show solidarity with America.
Was this just another case of everybody knowing but Orla not speaking up and ruining the big story? As PR stunts go, it was not the least successful.
The BBC isn’t anti-semitic, or even pro-Arab.
It’s generally supportive – certainly quite accepting – of the ethnic-nationalist claims of both Jew and Arab.
When it comes to Europeans however – especially the English – the beeb is openly hostile to the idea.
This double standard carries through to less fundamental issues for the various peoples’ survival and security like their self- and public-image, or their historic misadventures.
Jews, Arabs, and Muslims and non-european minorities generally escape the critique of ethnic and religious foibles and failings that the native peoples and Christians of Britian endure.
ample arthur | 28.01.08 – 12:03 am |
The English are not ‘natives’ of Britain – basic history. In fact we are not even a race but an amalgam of Danes and Anglo-Saxons. This is why Robin Cook (RIP) described the English as ‘mongrels’. Of course the BBC reported it as a Tory attack on immigrants, but then they would wouldn’t they?
To be ‘English’ is be a member of the ‘English’ culture – something I’m very proud of.
Otherwise you are correct, when attacking the English are always the BBCs favoured target.
Ample Arthur
“The BBC isn’t anti-semitic or pro-arab “.
Well, maybe not , but it is certainly anti-israeli and pro-arab .
Konya said: Well, maybe not, but it is certainly anti-israeli and pro-arab.
Not true, the typical BBC position is unconfortable with the ethnic-nationalism fundamental to the Israel project, but accepts it.
And if they do support Palestinians in their fight against race-replacement and subjugation in their homeland they don’t support Europeans in the same position.
It’s amusing that so many “conservative” europeans insist on the Jewish right to their own homeland – but attack the equivalent claims made by their own peoples.
Amusing too, how many “liberal” europeans support the Palestinian fight against race-replacement and ethnic dispossession in their homeland, but attack the equivalent claims made by their own peoples.
The victims of this systemic racism – the peoples of Europe – have yet to fully awaken to their predicament.
The English are not ‘natives’ of Britain – basic history. In fact we are not even a race but an amalgam of Danes and Anglo-Saxons. This is why Robin Cook (RIP) described the English as ‘mongrels’. Of course the BBC reported it as a Tory attack on immigrants, but then they would wouldn’t they?
Basic etymology: ‘native’: originating in a certain place. The English are a people formed here in England, they are native and indigenous to England.
Basic history: basic common-sense: all peoples were formed from the amalgamation of other peoples, the ancestors of every people migrated, including every race you might think of and your Danes and Anglo-Saxons (Anglo-Saxons!).
If the BBC described Cook’s comments as an attack on immigrants it’s only because the anti-English, anti-logic of your views holds sway in the establishment. Why shouldn’t they indeed?
To be ‘English’ is be a member of the ‘English’ culture – something I’m very proud of.
Don’t be proud of that which others have given you if you aren’t willing to defend it. A culture is people-specific. You are a free-loader. You ought to be ashamed, not proud.
Otherwise you are correct, when attacking the English are always the BBCs favoured target.
You bear some responsibility for that.
You need to read this: http://glad-thereafter.blogspot.com/2007/07/english-defined.html
ample arthur | 28.01.08 – 8:18 pm |
Stop it! My corset can’t take the strain! 😆
The Israel project is a national liberation movement. Did you attack every other national liberation movement over the past 50 years or so, I wonder?
There can’t be a ‘Palestinian’ fight against ‘race-replacement’ and ‘ethnic dispossession’ in their ‘homeland’, because there is no ‘Palestinian’ ‘homeland’. Back to History 101, I fear – or is it the Ladybird book on the Middle East for people who don’t quite get it?
Konya, being dyed-in-the-wool anti-Israeli DOES make the BBC antisemitic. It has no such visceral hatred for any other country other than the national homeland of the Jews, it has not been fundamentally biased against any other country for the past 30 years – now, why is that, I wonder? Occam ==> antisemitism.
NO: I’m defending a national liberation movement, not attacking one. The BBC attacks the national projects of Englishmen and the British – it accepts Israel as a done deal. If there isn’t a Palestinian fight against rr and ed in their hl, Israel sure does complain about it an awful lot.